1 

i 



J 



i 



i 



i 



! 

i 



I 
I 



i 

i 



■3 

I 



i 



f 



1 

i 



THE 



Church for Americans 



William Montgomery Brown, -^p 

Archdeacon of Ohio; Lecturer at Bexley Hall, the Theological Seminary 
of Kenyon College. 



E-, i> il Uyu HS XpioTov mi eh tt/v m^o'iav. 

— EPHESIANS, V : 32. 



FOURTH EDITION 
REVISED AND ENLARGED. 



NEW YORK: ^ | ^ 

THOMAS WHITTAKER, 



2 AND 3 Bible House, 
i8q6. 




The Library 

OF CONGRBSS 
WASHINGTON 



Copyright, 1895, 

BY 

WILLIAM MONTGOMERY BROWN. 



Copyright, 1896, 

BY 

\^^LLIAM MONTGOMERY BROWN., 



I.'AC.E 9Y 

THE WERNER COMPANY, 

AKRON, OHIO. 



TO 

MY BELOVED WIFE, 

ELLA BRADFORD BROWN, 

AXD HEE MOTHER, 

MARY SCRANTON BRADFORD, 

TRITE AND INSPIRING HELPERS OF THE AUTHOR IN HIS LIFE'S WORK, 
THIS VOLUME IS 
AFFECTIONATELY AND GEATEFULLY 
DEDICATED. 



" The Time YriLL Come When Three Woeds Uttered 
WITH Charity and Meekness Shall Receive a Far More 
Blessed Eetvard Than Three Thousand Volumes 
Written with Disdainful Sharpness op Wit." 

— Hooker. 



PREFACE. 



AS the origin of a book is- often of interest to the 
reader, I will explain that this work is along 
lines, which, as a Missionary, I have followed for 
many years in my addresses and conversations con- 
cerning the Church. I was first induced by the request 
of the Kt. Rev. Dr. Leonard, Bishop of Ohio, to elab- 
orate my talks into formal lectures, in the hope that 
they might contribute in some degree to the excellent 
preparation which our Missionary recruits are receiving 
at the Divinity School of Kenyon College. After their 
delivery to the Theological students, it was thought 
that tiiey would not be without interest to Sunday 
School teachers and others who now and then are called 
upon to commend or defend our beloved Church. 
Accordingly they have been made the basis of Lenten 
discourses to general congregations in Trinity Church, 
Toledo, and the Cathedral Parish, Cleveland. Finally, 
I have been persuaded by the representations of many 
who heard them that, if published, they would make a 
useful book for distribution among those vrho have been 
reared under Denominational or Roman influences, and 
supply the need, often felt by Lay readers and young 
missionaries, of a course of Confirmation instructions 
about the Church. 

(V) 



vi 



PREFACE. 



The concern whic^h this book manifests for the 
Ecclesiastical side of Christianity and the little it has to 
say about its spiritual and practical aspects, is due to 
what the writer considers to be, just now, the special 
religious need of our time and country. This is not 
instruction in the moral requirements of Christianity so 
much as the establishment of the fact that Christ 
founded a Church which has come down to us, and with 
some branch of which it is the privilege and duty of all 
to identify themselves. The idea that "one Church is 
as good as another" and that consequentl}^ "it prac- 
tically makes no difference to which we belong," is 
responsible for the enormous non-church element of the 
United States, which, according to the last census, 
amounted to more than half of the whole population, 
and for the loose hold which all bodies of Christians 
have upon their constituency. 

Under such circumstances it becomes a matter of 
first importance that the duty of belonging to the 
National branch of the one Apostolic Church of Christ, 
and the evil of separation from it, should be set forth 
in season and out of season. In proportion as this is 
done, the Episcopal Church ayIII be built up and held 
together. Our incomparable Liturgy, impressive Serv- 
ices, and attractive yearlj^ round of varied Holy Sea- 
sons, are indeed annually drawing thousands to this 
fold; but others in great numbers who care compara- 
tively little for these things, come because thej believe 
this Church to be historically and canonically the 
American as well as our racial branch of Christ's 
Church, and that, therefore, she possesses exclusive 
claims to allegiance. Every one who is influenced by 
this conviction, is worth ten of such as are attracted 
only by gesthetic considerations. Those who are in the 
Church simply because of natural ties, or on account of 



PREFACE. 



her attractive features,, are often drawn away by conn- 
ter influences and alienated tlie moment that all does 
not 2'o on according to their liking. But Episcopahans 
who are such fi-om principle rather than preference- 
and, thank God. this class is rapicllv increasing -stand 
by the Church through all the changes and chances of 

parochial life. 

I have an instance in mind of a person who. upon 
comino- to a village where our Mission was ^veak and 
the Pre^bvterians^ and Methodists were strong both 
sociallv and numerically, was asked by a caller : - hat 
Church do vou and your husband expect to attend. 
Vvon replvino- that they were members of the Episcopal 
Church her iiiterrogator said: -But that Church is so 
new and small and has no standing in the community. 
I think vou will find it much more to your taste to be 
identified with one of the big churches Avhere the other 
members of the social circle to which you will belong 
all o-o Mr^ B an estimal)le lady who recently came 
to t"own,\vas an Episcopahan but, after going once or 
twice to the little Chapel, she left and joined the Pres- 
bvterian Church where she is now a leading member. 
We like her verv much and should be glad if you and 
Mr C. would follow her example." To this the self -re- 
spectino- and consistent answer was made: '"'We are 
not that kind of Episcopalians. AYe became members of 
the Episcopal Church rather than of any other Chns- 
tian bodv because, after studying into the matter, we 
bpheved it our duty to do so. I am sorry to hear ot 
the feeble condition of my Church and of the infrequent 
ServicPs bv a Lay reader instead of by a Clergyman. 
But thi^ i^ all the more reason Avhy we should be true 
to our colors and lend a helping hand." This consis- 
tency on the part of an influential new-commg famfly 
was the making of the mission. 



vm 



PREFACE. 



I am under great obligation to some ten or twelve 
learned and judicious Clergymen of the Diocese of Ohio 
for their painstaking and helpful criticisms. Especially 
am I indebted to the Very Rev. Francis M. Hall, M.A., 
for invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript 
for the printer, and to Canon D. F. Davies, M.A., for 
some exceptionally important suggestions and a careful 
reading of the proofs. I desire also to thank the Rev. 
A. E. Oldroyd, M.A., of Oundle, Pmgiand, for kind per- 
mission to use some of the excellent charts in his able 
pamphlet on "The Continuity of the English Church 
through Eighteen Centuries," and the Rt. Rev. WiUiam 
Stevens Perry, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L., Bishop of Iowa, and 
other experts in special branches of learning who Avere 
good enough to answer my letters of inquiry and to 
send me some of their valuable publications, and last, 
but not least, my printers. The Wernek Company, of 
Akron, Ohio, and their efficient and obliging employees 
who have been uniformly courteous and patient. 

I shall feel anipl}^ repaid for the time and labor ex- 
pended upon this work, if, by God's blessing, it shall 
prove, to any degree, instrumental in persuading non 
church members to make a profession of Christ by 
identifying themselves with His Church , in adding to 
the number of well-instructed persons Avho come to us 
from the Denominational and Roman communions be- 
ca.use fully convinced of this Church's Divine and supe- 
rior claims to their allegiance, and in increasing the 
appreciation, love, and zeal of Episcopahans for their 
pure branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. 

W. M. B. 

Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland, Ohio, 
St. Luke's Day, 1895. 



PREFACE. 



ix 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 



Owing to the urgent recommendation of friends, my 
humble effort to set forth the superior claims of the 
Anglican Communion to the exclusive allegiance of 
Enghsh speaking people, written especially for Ameri- 
cans, was published a year earlier than was intended 
and, accordingly, the First Edition lacked a great 
many finishing touches. When it became manifest tha,t 
the demand for the book would greatly exceed my ex- 
pectation, every spare moment that could be com- 
manded was given to the work of revision. A few cor- 
rections and changes were made in the Second Edition, 
but there was no time between it and the Third for 
further alterations in the plates. It was then deter- 
mined that the Fourth Edition should be as free from 
blemishes and points for cavil as possible. Fortunately 
the summer vacation gave me the necessary leisure for 
the carrying out of this resolve. 

The many letters of warm commendation and friendly 
criticism received from. Clergymen and Laymen have 
been a great encouragement and help to me. Those to 
whom I am most indebted are: the Rt. Rev. Thomas 
Underwood Dudley, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L., Bishop of Ken- 
tucky and Chancellor of the University of the South ; 
the Rt. Rev. Hugh Miller Thompson, S.T.D., LL.D., 
Bishop of Mississippi; the Rev. W. C. Hopkins, D.D., 
City Missionary of Toledo; the Rev. Wm. Jones Sea- 
bury, D.D., Charles-and-Ehzabeth-Ludlow Professor of 
Ecclesiastical Polity and Law in the General Theological 
Seminary, New York; the Rev. Wm. C. McCracken, 
M.A., Rector of St. Martin's Church, Fairmont, Minne- 



X 



PREFACE. 



sota; the Rev. G. H. H. Butler, B.A., Curate of the 
Church of the Ascension, Mount Vernon, New York; 
and some unknown critic and friend of great learning 
who signed his several most important communica- 
tions with the pseudonym, "A Layman." 

One of the most scholarly and conservative Clergymen 
of this country accompanied his valuable corrections 
and suggestions with the gratifying assurance that the 
First Edition of the Church for Americans "brings out 
the whole case so that no one can be seriously misled by 
any of its statements ; and so that in point of principle 
and historical fact the reader who gets his first impres- 
sions from it must inevitably be started in the right 
direction. He Avould never feel himself to have been 
misled or obhged to deny the substance of what you 
have taught him." Many others have given expression 
to the same comforting opinion. If this is true of the 
first three editions it will be much more so of the fourth. 

It is believed that the value of the book has been 
materially increased by the addition of the last nine- 
teen sections to the Appendices and an Index of Refer- 
ences to Quotations. 

I desire to record here my gratitude to God for the 
blessing of strength and the grace of perseverance which 
have enabled me, notwithstanding the constant travel- 
ing and the many engrossing duties of a. General Mis- 
sionary of an extensive and populous Diocese, to 
complete a book that has required so much more work 
than was at first anticipated. W. M. B. 

Trinity Cathedral, Cleveland, Ohio, 

Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, 1896. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 
1 

Inteoductoky • " ' ° 

LECTURE I. 

15 

Church Membership » » 

LECTURE 11. 
Our Controversy with Romanists 

LECTURE III. 
Our Controversy with Denominationalists 147 

LECTURE IV. 
The Mother Church of England ^ 215 

LECTURE V. 

259 

The American Church o » ^ » 

LECTURE VI. 
Objections to the Episcopal Church...... 311 

LECTURE VII. 
Why Americans Should Be Episcopalians........ 357 



Appendices and Supplementary Articles.... 403 



"Thus Saith the Lord, Stand Ye in the Ways, 
AND See, and Ask for the Old Paths, Where Is the 
Good Way, and Walk Therein, and Ye Shall Find 
Rest for Your Souls." 

— Jeremiah vi : 16 



V 



(xii) 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 



FACING 
PAGE 



St. Martin's Church, Canterbury {Frontispiece) 
Diagram, Showing the Episcopal Descent of Par- 
ker Traced Back Four Successions 127 

Diagram, Showing That the Anglican Communion 
THROUGH Archbishop Laud Has the Apostolic 
Succession Independently of Archbishop Par- 

130 

KER 

Diagram, Showing That the Present Episcopate of 
THE Anglican Communion Can Trace Its De- 
scent through Archbishop Laud to Italian, 
Welsh, Irish, and Eastern Lines of Succession 131 

Diagram, Showing the Origin of the British 

Church to Have Been Independent of Rome. 236 

Map, Showing the Parts Taken, Respectively, by 
THE Native and Roman Missionaries in the 

Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons 240 

xiii 



' The Search for Trfth Is Not Half So Pleasant 
As Sticking to the Views AVe Hold at Present." 



INTRODUCTORY. 



IN our day and country there is, as everybody 
knows, a vast non church membership population. 
Judging from a somewhat extended personal ob- 
servation, 1 should say that at least one-half of the 
men and a third of the women are not identified with 
any form of organized Christianity. This is not be- 
cause Americans, at the close of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, are preeminently skeptical and irreligious, but 
because the opinion so widely prevails that a person 
can be as good a Christian outside of the Church and 
without the use of the Sacraments and means of grace 
as Avith them. 

The neglect of institutional religion is accounted for 
by the exaggerated importance which was attached to 
it by Catholic Christendom in the Mediaeval Ages, and 
is still attributed to it by Komanism. When we con- 
sider the tendency of human nature to go from one 
extreme to another, we shall not wonde^ .]hat the 
Keformation, in which Wickl'-^re, Huss, leather, Calvin 
and Knox took such prominent parts, has manifested a 
disposition to depreciate the Church with her Priest- 
hood and Sacraments, and to magnify certain Evangel- 
ical doctrines and the preaching of them. Romanists 
made salvation to depend upon belonging to the 
Church ; therefore, Protestants hinged it upon belief in 
a dogma. Then the pendulum of human opinion, which 

C.A.-l (1) 



2 



THE CHURCH FOE AMEEICAXS. 



never eontinueth in one stay, began to swing away from 
both Komanism a^nd Protestantism towards what is 
called practical religion, and has gone on in that 
direction until many in every community, having re- 
nounced both Ecciesiasticism and dogmatism, are 
reMng wholly upon moral living and good works for 
salvation. The representatives of institutional, doc- 
trinal and practical Christianity are now^ widely sepa- 
rated, and between them, apparently, a great and 
bridgeless gulf is fixed. And, what at first sight seems 
surpassingly strange and even inexphcable, they are 
strongly fortified in their respective positions by walls, 
the stones of which are hewn from the rock of Holy 
Scripture. And so impregnable are these fortifications 
that, notwithstanding each has been bombarded for 
these many years by ponderous controversial artillery, 
no practicable breach has been effected. 

Now, how shall we account for this ? Does the Bible, 
out of which the contending hosts have constructed 
their defenses, cr^^-adict itself? God forbid ! It does 
nothing of the kind. The solution is rather in the fact 
that the Divine quarry contains more than one stratum 
of truth. There is an institutional, a doctrinal and a 
practical stratum. Christ founded a Church to be en- 
tered ; He appointed Sacraments to be received; He 
taught doctrines to be believed, and He set an exam- 
ple of good works to be followed. Salvation depends 
in due proportion upon 3i these, not upon one of 
them alone. These have been joined together by God; 
therefore, "let no man put them asunder." 

If in this book a gi eat deal is said about Church 
membership and comparatively httle concerning the 
necessit}^ of right living or believing, it is because we 
have written chiefly for those who, whether as Doc- 
trinalists or Practicalists, have either quite divorced 



INTEODIJCTORY. 



3 



themselves from the Chm^eli, or else have learned to es- 
teem her altogether too httle. We would not have any 
reader make less of doctrinal, certainly not of practical 
Christianitv, but would persuade many to attach more 
importance to the institutional side of our religion. 
Accordinglv, we have endeavored to promote the con- 
viction that every person is in duty bound to identify 
himself with some branch of the Church of Christ. 

It may as well be confessed here that our object is 
not only to persuade non church members to unite with 
some one of the manv organizations of Christians, but 
particularlv with the Episcopal Church. ]\Ioreover, we 
have been guilty of keeping in mind our Denomina- 
tional and Roman brethren, in the hope that what we 
have to sav will induce some of them to come over to 
us. Manv condemn such efforts as betokening a want 
of broadmindedness and charity towards other Chris- 
tian bodies. Those who pride themselves upon their 
-non-sectarianism "-and there are multitudes of such 
in every community - characterize as bigots all who do 
not acknowledge that one Denomination is as good as 
another, and contend that it makes practically no dif- 
ference to which of them one belongs, since ah will lead 
us to the same Heaven if we but trust in Christ and 
follow Him. 

So plausible and pleasing is this representation to 
people generallv,that the assertion of convictions which 
run counter to it is usually hstened to with impa- 
tience And vet no observing and reflecting person can 
fail to discover the hollowness of the pretensions of 
those who affect this liberality. Nothing can be plainer 
than that they regard the Denomination with which 
the^' have cast their lot as being, at least in some re- 
spects, better than any other. The evidence of this is 
found in the very existence and continuance of their sect. 



4 



THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 



It would never have been organized if its charter mem- 
bers had not regarded their creation as superior to 
others of the kind ; and it would soon have died out but 
for the conviction of its superiority which continued to 
possess its adherents. Sects, like political parties, 
originate and per|)etuate their existence because their 
peculiar principles attract men and hold them together. 
This being the case, no one who is governed by conviction 
and principle can be "non-sectarian." All such must 
feel it a duty to assert and prove superior claims to 
allegiance for the Denomination with which they are 
connected. Hence, though the writer may have had 
some hesitancy arising from the dread of adverse criti- 
cism, he has had no qualms of conscience in trying to 
make it appear that the Episcopal Church can estabhsh 
superior claims to the allegiance of Americans. 

But this work was not prepared exclusively with ref- 
erence to non church members and the members of other 
Christian bodies. Indeed, it was primarily intended for 
the instruction of our own people. The accessions to 
the Episcopal Church from the various Denominations 
have been increasing until they constitute a large per- 
centage, often the principal part, of our Confirmation 
classes. These converts are, as a rule, good, enthusiastic 
Episcopalians. But in many cases there is reason to 
fear that the change of Church relationship may be ac- 
counted for upon the ground of superficial preferences 
rather than deep-rooted conviction. It is highly desir- 
able, both on the convert's and the Church's account, 
that he should be able to justify his course on the score 
of principle. Those who cannot do this, and there are 
many such in nearly all of our congregations, have 
been, we think, insufiiciently instructed. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury is doubtless correct in 
the supposition that "there is perhaps not even now 



IXTEODrCTOEY. 



5 



one Churchman in ten who is as well instructed in the 
reason why he is a Churchman as Dissenters or Eomari 
Cathohcs are instructed in the arguments whereby their 
position is defended. This should surely be remedied.'' 
For those who are not well grounded in Church princi- 
ples are apt to be more or less disturbed by the asser- 
tions and objections of Denominationalists on the 
one hand and of Romanists on the other. And in de- 
fending their transfer of allegiance they are seldom able 
to do "themselves or their Church justice. In fact they 
not infrequently do more harm than good to all con- 
cerned. It is beheved that the.facts and arguments of 
these pages will enable those who have come into the 
Church from Denominationahsm and Romanism, or are 
about to do so, to justify their action upon principle as 
well as from preference. 



Throughout this work the isolated and neglected 
brethren.'of whom there are many in the rural commu- 
nities of almost every part of the United States, have 
also been kept in view. Such are strongly tempted to 
turn their back upon the Church of their birth or adop- 
tion. After living for some time without her Services, 
and becoming convinced that there is no immediate 
prospectof their establishment, inthemajority of cases, 
they finally yield to the pressing solicitations of the rep- 
resentatives of some one of the established Denomina- 
tions to cast in their lot with them. In this way it 
has come about that in many Dioceses the Church has 
lost the allegiance of as many communicants as she 
now possesses. The writer could mention several towns 
in Ohio, in which the "bone and sinew" of some 
strong Denomination is composed of lapsed Church 
people. 



6 



THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 



This leakage is largely a.ccounted for by the lack of 
the missionary spirit on the part of our great city con-' 
gregations. From every point of view the failure of city 
Churchmen to minister to their country brethren, by 
taking the Church to out-of-the-way places and helping 
to maintain it, has been a mistake. Not only have we 
lost the nucleus for a congregation that at one time or 
another has existed in almost every village, but also all 
the multitudes that would have been added to them, 
had we been wise enough to plant and nourish missions 
before the ground was preoccupied and our constitu- 
ency alienated. 

Moreover, the Church in our cities, though usually 
strong and often the dominant body of Christians, is 
much weaker than it would have been, had the city 
Churchman not refused to be his country and village 
brother's keeper. The drift in this country has been and 
is from the smaller towards the larger centers of pop- 
ulation. The operation of this law of centralization 
has constantly weakened the rural and strengthened the 
city Churches. In the Diocese of Ohio many of our 
congregations in the large cities and towns are greatly 
indebted to more or less obscure villages and hamlets, 
where the Apostolic Chase, Searle, Hall, and others had 
the wisdom to plant the Church in the early days. Had 
their policy of strengthening the weak things that re- 
main, by esta,bHshing Services wherever two or three of 
our people could be found and a congregation assembled 
been continued, the Church would now^be probably two 
or three times stronger than it is. If the expectation 
that this book will tend to make the Episcopalian 
reader a Churchman from conviction is not disappointed, 
it will also make him a missionary. Nothing extraor- 
dinary in the way of gifts or work for the cause of 
Church extension can be expected of those who are 



INTRODUCTORY. 



7 



Episcopalians rather than Den o mi nationalists from 
preference only. . , 

\nd if what we have to say promotes the missionary 
spirit among the favored Church people of our cities, it 
^Yill at the same time tend to restrain "the neglected 
sheep of the wilderness" from wandering away from 
this fold of Christ, the Church of their fathers. There 
are scattered here and there through Ohio, and no 
doubt the same is true of every undeveloped Diocese 
men and women who have been without the Services of 
the Church for as many as thirty, forty, and even fifty 
years and vet have remained her faithful children dur- 
ing all this time. These, as a rule, have gone regularly 
to some Denominational place of worship and contrib- 
uted their proportion towards its support, but such 
spiritual privileges have never induced them to allow 
their Prayer Books to grow dusty. One of the objects 
of this book is to increase the number of such by pro- 
moting the conviction that nothing will justify the 
abandonment of the ancient Cathohc Church of the 
English-speaking race for membership in any of the 
modern Denominations. 

Because a person finds himself to be one of only 
two or three representatives of the Church m a com- 
munitv, he is not justified in transferring his allegiance 
to any of the Denominations. Let him rather consti- 
tute himself a missionary. He can persuade his breth- 
ren, if there be any, and other well-disposed persons, to 
join him in the establishment perhaps of a Sunday 
afternoon Lay Service; he can distribute Prayer Books 
and tracts in which the claims and ways of the Church 
are explained and justified, and he can be instrumental 
in an organized effort to secure at least the occasional 
visit of a Clergyman. Some of the most prosperous 
parishes and promising missions of Ohio have grown 



8 



THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 



out of the zealous efforts of a very few persons. One of 
our largest and best equipped Churches and Sunday 
Schools owes its origin to a discreet Churchwoman. 
She assembled her numerous family and as many of her 
neighbors as she could persuade to join them on each 
Lord's Day, and after she had conducted the Service, her 
husband, who was not a communicant, read a sermon 
wdiich she had selected. 

Thus, the fact that it has pleased God to call a 
Churchman to live in a place where he is deprived of 
priestly ministrations, affords no reason why he should 
forsake the spiritual mother and guide of his youth by 
joining himself with those whose ancestors, in their self- 
will and rebellion, went out from her, and by the form- 
ing of rival sects did all in their power to reahze the 
mad cry, "down with her, down with her, even to the 
gTOund."' On the contrarj^, such persons have all the 
more cause for extraordinary faithfulness, since, by 
such a course, they ma}- become the honored instru- 
ments of planting the Catholic Church of the English 
race and establishing "the Faith once delivered to the 
Saints " in a region where otherwise these might remain 
unknown or obscured for generations to come. Think 
of the inestimable privilege of thus becoming instru- 
mental in establishing a mission or parish of the Church 
of Christ. It falls to the lot of but fe^v in any other 
way to erect such a fair, enduring monument to the 
glory of God and their own memory. The isolated sons 
and daughters of the Church may in mauy cases at least 
have their names inscribed upon such a monument as 
the charter members of the Church of the place in which 
their lot has been cast. 

It is often very ea sy to secure this imperishable fame. 
The truth of this observation might be abundantly 
illustrated out of the experience of all who have been 



INTEODLTCTOEY. 



9 



loDo- eno-aged in Chtirch extension ^vork. The ^Titer 
couTd mention a. village .vhere six years ago the only 
person interested in the Episcopal Church, ,f not "ideed 
the only one Avho knew of her existence, was a child who, 
while attending a seminary, had occasionally accom- 
panied two or three companions to the Services of a 
neighboring Chnrch. Now the little village boasts of a 
flourishing mission with a centrally located lot and a 
picturesque Chapel, paid for, and in all time to come, 
whenever the history of this Church shall be rehearsed, 
the name of the school-girl to whom it owes its origm 
will be mentioned. . . , -, t ^„ 

If then, this book should fall into the hands of some 
isoWted member of the Church, let me exhort you to re- 
member that "though a sentinel on the outposts, you 
are still a member of that vast army with its two hun- 
dred Bishops, forty thousand otherClergy, and mdhons 
of privates." You are not alone. Though few of your 
faith are near vou, there are, in every portion of the 
globe, millions" of intelligent, godly men and women 
who think as you think, love the same worship and hold 
the same truths. God has placed you where you are for 
a purpose, perhaps to be the nucleus of some future 
(Jhurch in which hundreds will learn her sacred ways. 
Stand firm, then, as a pioneer. Be true +0 your trust. 
Teach vour children to love your Church. That Church 
is doing a grand, a glorious work. She is marching to 
victory. Be faithful at your post, and watch unto 
prayer ! 



It will appear, from an examination of the table of 
contents, that it was impossible to cover the ground 
marked out for this book without instituting com- 
K parisons between the Episcopal Church and other 



10 



THE CHUECH FOR AMEEICAXS. 



bodies of Christians. Where Ave are found to differ 
radically in matters of doctrine and government, an 
uncompromising effort has been made to justify our 
position. But the uniform endeavor has been to speak 
the truth as Episcopahans understand it, in a spirit 
of love and fairness, and it is hoped that we have 
nowhere been so unfortunate in our expression as to 
wound the feelings of any who differ from us, or to leave 
the impression that we are so narrow and bigoted as 
not to perceive that the various Denominations of Chris- 
tians have done and are doing a great amount of good. 
If it was said of one who followed not the " twelve," 
with Jesus personally amongst them, "Forbid him not, 
for he that is not against us is for us," we must surely 
say it with far more emphasis with respect to those who 
follow not the American successors of the Apostles. ' ' No 
one of the Apostolic band upheld the unity of Christ's 
mystical body, the Church, as St. Paul did, and he also 
could say, and let us say it with him, 'Notwithstanding, 
every way, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, 
yea, and will rejoice.'" We believe that countless mil- 
lions will be in Heaven who followed not with us. 

But though we are aware of the Christian graces, the 
good Avorks, and the bright heavenly prospects of tens 
of thousands of the representatives of the Eoman 
Church and non-Episcopal Denominations, yet this glad 
conAiction does not justify us in forgetting our pro- 
longed, causeless, hurtful, and, therefore, sinful divi- 
sions, and the consequent obligation to do Avhat we can 
to restore the visible organic unity of the primitive 
Church. We are indeed all journeying toward the 
Promised Land ; but how much better it would be for us 
and for the world if we were going together in the 
straight and narrow^ way of God's appointment. The 
fallacy of those who argue that "we are all engaged in 



INTRODUCTORY. ^ 



the same work and seeking the same Heaven, and after 
all it does not ma,tter much which way we take," has 
been illustrated by the Mississippi River at a flood 
time. The water which remains in the channel, and that 
which breaks through the dikes and tears its destruc- 
tive course along, alike make their way to the Gulf; 
but it does make some difference how they get there. 
The Church of God is often compared to an army, and 
the various Denominations are likened to so many regi- 
ments in that army. But, as has frequently been pomted 
out, an army the regiments of which held httle or no 
communication, recognized no common orders or offi- 
cers, and had no concerted plan of campaign, would be 
helpless and ineff'ective. Such an undisciplined horde 
could only court defeat. 

''Let us suppose," says Bishop Coxe, ''that General 
Moltke had said, before crossing the Rhine, to his brave 
men in arms, 'Soldiers, we are acting on a very false 
system of war. I observe you all seem to be thor- 
oughly organized as one grand army, and that you are 
anxious to preserve, however you may be distributed m 
various corps, one discipline, one common plan of cam- 
paign, and one recognized system of drill, of mstruc- 
tions,'of subordination, and of organic force. All this 
is mere delusion. You have different tastes, and are m- 
teUigent enough to have each your own ideas of what it 
is best to do. Break up, then, this vast clumsy organi- 
zation, and let us have, at least, five or six different 
armies, each pursuing its own way, and occasionally 
ffring into each other, or pausing for skirmishes be- 
tween different generals. If these skirnnshes should 
promote subdivisions, and end in producing thirty or 
fortv armies and guerrilla gangs, obviously we should 
all be the stronger. We want nothing but unity of 
heart Be good Germans, and act for the one object of 



12 



THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 



humbling the enemies of Fatherland. Yes, I hear your 
cheers. Your hearts are all right ; now then, break up 
into jour several gangs, act with your favorite officers; 
agree to differ; scatter, scatter, scatter! That is the 
best plan, if the heart is only true to the cause. Be sure 
to shake hands ^dth one another before and after a free 
fight among yourselves; then keep to your personal 
ideas of a campaign, and follow no leader that will not 
gratify these convictions. This will insure success. 
Huzzah, boys! Now, begone! Helter-Skelter ! be your 
war cry.'" 

No separations among Christians are lawful, though 
they may be divinely overruled for good, except such as 
come from the mere national divisions of humanity. 
All Americans should be in an American Church. There 
should be a ''United Church of the United States"— ''a 
Church with wide freedom in all minor matters, but 
with Apostolic succession for its ministrv. Ecumenical 
indorsement for its Creed, and reverent celebration of 
the two Sacraments." 

In view of the fact that our blessed Lord fervently 
prayed that we might be one, and that He hinged the 
Christianization of the world upon a united Church, we 
feel in conscience bound to do what we can to convince 
all with whom, in any way, we come into contact, and 
over whom we have the least influence, that the Anglican 
Communion, of which the American Episcopal Church 
is a part, offers the only ground upon which the reunion 
of divided Christendom can take place. It has been 
well said: ''We haA^e not, as a communion, such a 
monopoly of either piety or learning in this land that 
we can afford to be contemptuous, even if that temper 
were ever permissible in a Christian Church. But we 
have, through the blessing of God, the title deeds of the 
old homestead in our hands; we sit by the hearthstone 



INTEODUCTOET. 



13 



of tte English-speaking race; and ought we to be 
blamed for thinking that if the family can be gathered 
anywhere in peace, it must be here? " 

" O Thou who didst on that last night, 

Ere death had paled Thy brow, 
Speak sweetly of love's power and might, 

As none could speak but Thou, 
Eemind Thy Httle flock, alas! 

So prone to disagree, 
That Thy desire and last prayer was 

For Christian Unity." 

I must conclude these introductory remarks with a 
little further justification of our Clergy and a large per- 
centage of the Laity who have no hesitancy in doing 
what they can to persuade the adherents of other Chris- 
tian bodies to come into the Episcopal Church. To this 
end we write and disseminate books such as this, preach 
sermons, converse, and invite people to the Services. 
Romanists do not blame us for this because, as a rule, 
they are also avowed proselyters. But Denomination- 
aUsts often represent that we are guilty of something 
akin to robbery, in fact they plainly call it sheep steal- 
ing." They represent our conduct as being, if not abso- 
lutely sinful, at least unworthy of any Christian man or 
woman. We protest that this representation is wholly 
unjustified. Christian Denominations have just as much 
right to proselyte as political parties. If a Prohibi- 
tionist has no hesitancy in winning over a Republican 
or Democrat we do not see why Methodists should have 
any scruples about taking in Presbyterians or Baptists 
when they have an opportunity. And if they can win 
back the adherents of the numerous bodies who at one 
time or another went out from themselves, it is even 



14 



THE CHUECH FOR AMERICANS. 



harder to conceive upon what grounds they can be 
justly condemned. 

But whether the making of inroads one upon the 
other by rival Denominations is justifiable or not, we 
cannot allow those who fault us to forget that if they 
and their ancestors had all along been guiltless, the 
great majority of Denominationahsts would now be in 
the Episcopal Church. AVhen the tide was flowing from 
the Church, Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Meth- 
odists did not condemn proselyting, but now that the re- 
action has set in and the returning waves are bringing 
tens of thousands from them to our shores, they have 
suddenly discovered that it is a very discreditable busi- 
ness. We contend, however, that if the law of charity 
and comity be observed, an Episcopahan has a perfect 
right to make as many converts to his Church as 
possible. In fact the majority of us are obhged by our 
convictions to do so, for we beheve that there is*^ only 
one Cathohc and Apostohc Church of Christ, and that 
the various branches of the Anghcan Communion in 
their respective countries are entitled to the exclusive 
allegiance and support of the Enghsh speaking popu- 
lation. Moreover, we hold that sectarianism is a 
great evil. This being the case, an Episcopahan who is 
not a proselj^ter would be as inconsistent as a Denomi- 
nationahst who is such. 

" I will not cease from mental strife, 

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, 
Till we have built Jerusalem 

In this our green and pleasant land." 



The Church for Americans, 



LECTURE I. 

CHURCH A\EA\BERSHIP. 

I. Obligations to Belong to Chukch. 
II. The Choice of a Church. 



(15i 



AUTHORITIES. 



Chapix, Primitive Church. 
Chapman, Sermons on the Church. 

Churtox, Bp., The Missionary's Foundation of Doctrine. 
CusHMAN, Doctrine and Duty. 

Gaenier, Caxo;v, a First Book on Church Principles. 

Gladstone, Church Principles Considered in Their Results. 

GouLBURx, Deax, The Holy Catholic Church, 

Huntington, The Church Idea. 

Labagh, Theoklesia, 

Lay, Bp., Studies in the Church. 

Leonard, Bp., A Brief History of the Christian Church, 

Oxoniensis, Komanism, Protestantism, Anglicanism. 

Palmer, Treatise on the Church. (2 vols.) 

Row, Apostolic Christianity. 

Sadler, Church Doctrine, Bible Truth. 

West, Tracts on Church Principles. 

Wilson, The Church Identified. 

PAMPHLETS. 



Drummond. The City Without a Church. 
Drummond, The Programme of Christianity. 
Ewer, What Is the Anglican Charch ? 
Miller, My Parish Xote-Book. 
Thompson, Bp., First Principles. 
Woodhouse, What Is the Church ? 



(16) 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



I. 



OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
HERE are three principal reasons why every per- 



son who hears the Gospel of Christ should 



belong to His Church. The first grows out of 
the duty of obedience. The Church is the Kingdom of 
Christ, and all outside of it is the Kingdom of Satan. 
We must, in the long run, give our undivided alle- 
giance to either one or the other of these princes. We 
cannot adhere to both. "No man can serve two mas- 
ters, for either he will hate the one and love the other ; 
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. 
Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." Those who re- 
main out of the Church, and yet try to follow the 
example and precepts of Christ, are trying to please two 
masters. As a rule which holds, notwithstanding 
the comparatively few exceptions that we may know 
of, such men fail. The majority of non church mem- 
bers are not the servants of Christ. Speaking gen- 
erally, men out of His Church do no more serve Him 
than they who fight in the enemies' ranks help their 
. country. The Kingdom of Christ and the world are 
in deadly conflict for the mastery. How then can 




C. A. 



(17) 



18 



CHUECH MEMBERSHIP. 



anyone who professes to be a loyal servant of Christ, 
stand aloof from His Church, ^\-hich is His Kino^- 
dom? 

In our day a great many people acknoAvledge the 
duty of making the example and precepts of Christ 
their rule of life, but deny that they are under any 
obligation to become Church members. They fail to 
see that this is required of them. " Milhons in Amer- 
ica," sajs Bishop Coxe, "hve and die in the easy per- 
suasion, from which no trumpet of united testimony 
rouses them, that they are rather the better for 'read- 
ing their Bibles' and 'leading moral lives,' while not 
'making any profession of religion,' as they term it. 
Inverted Pharisaism of American inorganic Chris- 
tianity! They inake a merit of not obeying, and of 
being so good without the means of grace." Surely 
such have not asked themselves the question : Why 
did Christ found a Church, and why did He say so 
much about it? Was it not manifestly that "^men 
might be separated from the Kingdom of Satan, and 
be identified with Him? 

It is well known that all great prophets and re- 
formers have had some particular message which has, 
by constant reiteration, crystallized into a word or 
phrase. With IMoses it was law; with Confucius, mo- 
rality; with Buddha, renunciation; with Mohammed, 
God ; with Socrates, soul. AVith the Master it was 
"the Kingdom of God." Says Professor Drummond: 
"Christ's great word was 'the Kingdom of God.' One 
hundred times it occurs in the Gospels. When He 
preached He had almost always this for a text. His 
sermons were explanations of the aims of His society, 
of the different things it was like, of whom its mem- 
bership consisted, what they were to do or to be or 
not to do or to be. And even when He does not use 



OBLIGATIOXS TO CHUECH ilEMBEESHIP. 



19 



the ^-ord, it is easy to see that all He said and did had 
reference to this.'' 

A little reflection, therefore, must convince all that 
the founding of the Church by Christ, or by His repre- 
sentatives, the Apostles, and the importance which He 
attaches to it, make identification with it of universal 
obhgation. The prevailing demand is for a preaching 
of the Gospel with the Church left out, or at least put 
far in the background. Surely the many who, in defer- 
ence to popular sentiment, have tried to preach such a 
Gospel, have not preached Christ's Gospel, for it dwells 
more on the Church than upon any other subject. 

Though the duty of membership may be clearly in- 
ferred from the fact that Christ founded a Church and 
made it the burden of His discourses, we are not left 
without explicit injunctions requiring identification 
with His Kingdom. For every command to receive 
Christian Baptism is really a positive injunction to be- 
long to the Church. Baptism is the door to the Church. 
It is the Sacrament of initiation. A person cannot -re- 
ceive it without becoming a member of the Church. 
Therefore, when our Lord said, " Go ye and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of 
the Son and of the Holy Ghost," it is as if He had said. 
Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel, making 
whosoever accepts it a member of My Church. Noth- 
ing can be clearer than that in Apostohc days none who 
stood aloof from the Church were regarded as having 
received the Gospel. Non church members were looked 
upon as heathen. The unbaptized stood in the same 
relation to Christianity as the uncircumcised did to Ju- 
daism. It must be evident to all that if others are 
commanded to see to it that we are identified with the 
Kingdom of Christ by Baptism, it is equivalent to a 
command that we should become Church members. 



20 



CHUECH MEMBERSHIP. 



The first and most important step in the way of 
obedience to Christ is, therefore, Church membership. 
No man, who has heard the Gospel and acknowledges 
the claims of Christ to his allegiance, can discharge his 
duty while remaining outside the Church. The first 
thing to be done by him who would follow Christ is to 
transfer his allegiance from the prince of this world to 
the Divine Lord of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the 
height of absurdity for a man to claim that he can be 
as good a Christian while outside of the Church as he 
could be within it. As well might a foreigner pretend 
that he can be as good an American citizen, without 
naturahzation as with it. Such a man is not an Ameri- 
can at all. Neither is a non church member, strictly 
speaking, a Christian. 

A good story is told by a distinguished Presbyterian 
clergyman, about a little girl who Avas talking to her 
grandfather. The old gentleman had been imparting 
some advice, suitable to the tender years of his grand- 
child. Finally the latter put the question : " Grandpa, 
are you a Christian?" "Yes, my dear, I hope I am.'^ 
''What Church do you belong to, grandpa?" ''Oh, I 
belong to the Church of Christ." "But what is that? 
Are you a member of the same Church that mamma 
and I are — the Episcopal Church?" "No, my dear, I 
am not an Episcopalian." "Are you a Presbyterian, 
then?" "No, I am not a Presbyterian." '^Are you a 
Baptist, then? " "No." "Are you a Methodist? "'^" No, 
dear; I don't belong to any of the churches." After a 
pause, in which the little one was thinking it all over, 
she turned her face up to her grandfather's and said : 
"Well, grandpapa, if I were you, I would try and get in 
somewhere.'' Until modern times no one claimed to be 
a Christian, or was regarded as such, who did not "get 
in somewhere." 



OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



21 



A^ain, those wlio are standing aloof from the Church 
should enter out of consideration for their own highest 
welfare. Salvation is made by our Lord Himself to 
depend upon the confession of Him. " ^YhosoeYer shall 
confess me before men, him ^xill I confess also before my 
Father, which is in heaven ; but whosoever shall deny 
me before men, him will I also deny before my Father, 
which is in heaven.'' Now there is no way in which a 
person can make an open unreserved confession of 
Christ except by the renunciation of the world for the 
Church. This,*^ according to our Lord's own appoint- 
ment, must be done in Holy Baptism. "Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
the Kingdom of God." And the Kingdom of God here 
does not mean that Heaven which we hope to attain 
after this life, but the Church which Christ founded when 
upon earth. It is, therefore, the same as if He had said, 
Unless you belong to the Church, you cannot attain to 
Gospel Salvation. 

I cannot do better than to quote in this connection 
the weightv words of Bishop Pearson: "We read at 
the first that the Lord added daily to the Church such 
as should be saved; and what was then daily done hath 
been done since continually. Christ never appointed 
two ways to Heaven, nor did He build a Church to save 
some and make another institution for other men's 
salvation. There is none other name under Heaven 
given among men, whereby we must be saved, but the 
name of Jesus, and that name is no otherwise given 
under Heaven than in the Church. As none were saved 
from the deluge but such as were within the ark of 
Noah, framed for their reception by the command of 
God; as none of the firstborn of Egypt lived, but such 
as were within those habitations wiiose doorposts 
were sprinkled with blood by the appointment of 



22 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



God for their preservation ; as none of the inhabitants 
of Jericho could escape the fire or sword but such as 
were within the house of Rahab, for whose protec- 
tion a covenant was made, so none shall ever escape 
the anger of God which belong not to the Church of 
God." 

As some one has pointed out, ''The nineteenth 
century needs to be told, as by another John Baptist, 
crying, not in the wilderness, but throughout all the 
American continent, that not to confess Christ openly, 
that is, not to accept His covenant in the institution 
He has provided, is virtually to deny Him. How 
very comfortable it would have been had this Amer- 
ican gospel been taught in the first century: 'Be 
good, read your Bibles, and God will not ask you 
whether or not you belong to Church.' That would 
just have suited Demas, who loved this present world 
and had no idea of coming out of it and being sep- 
arate. He would have Hved and died, 'respecting re- 
hgion,' as the phrase is, but chiefly consoled by that 
blessed doctrine, ' It makes no difference about exter- 
nals, provided only the heart is right.' 'Precisely so,' 
brother Demas would have said; 'I trust my heart 
is all right, but I've no trust in ordinances.' To come 
out and be baptized and to receive the laying on of 
hands, and to frequent the Lord's Supper, he would 
have argued, ' are well enough for those who are so 
superstitious. But stoning by the Jews is uncom- 
fortable ; beheading and other tortures of the Romans 
involve great personal sacrifices. I can ' believe in my 
heart,' you know, without confessing with my mouth, 
or submitting to those outward things which carnal 
minds make so much of. Yes, I've alwaj^ s been consoled 
by those spiritual views of the Gospel which teach me 
to be a good Christian in my heart, without submitting 



OBLIGATIONS TO CHUECH MEMBEKSHIP. 



23 



to any formal system, subversive as such systems must 
be of our Christian hberty." 

Moreover, the good of others should move non 
church members to identify themselves with the Church. 
The continuation and development of our civilization 
depend upon the Church which gave it birth, and has 
brought it to its present stage of perfection. It^ is 
wrong for anv man or woman to pursue a course which 
if universally adopted would make the world worse in- 
stead of better. If all were from this time on to follow 
the example of the non church members who are to be 
found in every community, the Christian civihzation, in 
every respect, even in its present imperfect state, the 
best that the world has ever seen, would rapidly decline, 
and a generation or two would suffice to bring about 
its extinction. History plainly teaches that no civiliza- 
tion long survives the abandonment of the religion 
upon whkh it is founded. Up to this time all civiliza- 
tions have had some religion for their basis. Chris- 
tianitv is the foundation of our civilization. 

So'^long as the Greeks and Romans were faithful m 
the service of their gods, their magnificent civihzations 
advanced to higher stages of perfection, but when they 
began to forsake their temples a retrogression com- 
menced which in its degree kept pace almost exactly 
with the progress of the national apostasy. History 
would certainlv repeat itself in the case of our civiliza- 
tion, if all were to imitate the example of non church 
members. In addition, therefore, to the duty of obedi- 
ence to Christ and consideration for your own highest 
welfare the good of the world, in so far as it depends 
upon the perpetuity and development of our civiliza- 
tion. requires vou to identify yourself with the ChuiTh. 
Dutv to Christ, to yourself, and to every human bemg 
in the world, makes it incumbent upon you to belong to 



24 



CHUKCH MEMBERSHIP. 



the Church, '^f," to borrow the burning words of an- 
other, " jou know anything better, Jive for it; if not, in 
the name of God and of humanity, carry out Christ's 
plan " by the identification of yourself with his Kingdom. 

It is impossible for the non church member to justify 
his position. It is not sufficient that he should be able 
to say truthfully : "I follow the example and precepts 
of Christ as closely as the majority of Church members 
who are within the circle of my acquaintance." The 
Church, which was founded for the salvation of the world, 
would cease to exist if all followed your example, and 
but for the Church and its imperfect, sinful members, 
towards whom you are ever pointing the finger of criti- 
cism, you would know little, and care less, about Christ. 

To quote Professor Drummond again: "Here and 
there an unchurched soul may stir the multitudes to 
lofty deeds; isolated men, strong enough to preserve 
their souls apart from the Church, but shortsighted 
enough perhaps to fail to see that others cannot, may 
set high examples and stimulate to national reforms. 
But for the rank and file of us, made of such stuff as we 
are made of, the steady pressure of fixed institutions, 
the regular diet of a common worship, and the educa- 
tion of public Christian teaching, are too obvious safe- 
guards of scriptural culture to be set aside." 

Even Renan, one of the most gifted of modern 
French skeptics, declares it to be his conviction that, 
"beyond the family and outside the state man has 
need of the Church. Civil society, whether it calls itself 
a commune, a canton, or a province, a state or a 
Fatherland, has many duties towards the improve- 
ment of the individual; but Avhat it does is necessarily 
limited. The family ought to do much more, but often 



OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



25 



it is insufficient. Sometimes it is Avanting altogether. 
The association created in the name of moral principle 
can alone give to every man coming into this world, a 
bond which unites him to the past, duties as to the fu- 
ture, examples to follow, a heritage to receive and to 
transmit, and a tradition of devotion to continue." 

Nor can a non church member justify his position by 
the opposite plea, so frequently . urged— " I am not 
good enough to belong to Church." Christ came to 
save sinners. He said: ''They that be whole have 
no need of a physician." The Church would collapse 
to-day if goodness and worthiness were made conditions 
of membership. In the Litany all, even those who have 
attained the greatest degree of Christhkeness, are 
taught to pray, "Have mercy upon us miserable sin- 
ners." Whether in or out of the Church every member 
of the human race is a sinner. We are of course aware 
that some deny that they are sinners. My attention 
has recently been called to an instance. In a sermon 
preached at one of our mission stations I had occasion 
to refer to the fact that the Church teaches all, not ex- 
cepting the most venerable and godly, to look upon 
themselves as sinful men and women. The lay reader 
afterwards told me that he was glad for that passage 
in my sermon, because on the Sunday before, during the 
reading of the Litany, a woman had abruptly left the 
Church in manifest displeasure and that one who after- 
ward made inquiry concerning the ground of her excep- 
tion to the Service was told : "I will have nothing to 
do with a Church that obliges all her worshipers, with- 
out distinction, to confess and acknowledge that they 
are sinners. I was convei-ted only a few weeks ago, and 
am not a sinner." Of course such a person cannot be 
an Episcopalian nor a member of any branch of the 
Catholic Church of Christ, which is exclusively for sinners. 



26 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



The man of whom one of our missionary Bishops 
tells had a truer appreciation of his real condition. 
Upon going to a mining Tillage of his jurisdiction, where 
the Services of the Church had never been held, the 
Bishop inquired of a person whom he met at tlie board- 
ing house whether or not there were any members of 
the Episcopal Church in the camp. " Why, yes," said he, 
''that is my Church, and I am glad you have come." 
The Bishop expressed his gratification at running 
across an interested person bo soon and requested his 
help in securing a hall and making the arrangements 
for the initiator}^ Service. He found the miner to be a 
cheerful and efficient helper, taking everything into his 
own hands. When the hour of Ser^dce arrived he con- 
ducted the Bishop to a billiard hall, where a good sized 
congregation of miners had assembled. The Service 
was quite satisfactory, considering the incongruous 
surroundings, there being some half dozen Churchmen 
present who read the responses. But the Bishop no- 
ticed with surprise that his zealous helper could not 
handle the Prayer Book, and did not even conform to 
the customary postures. So, after returning to the 
house, he natural!}^ made some inquiries of his friend. 
"Did you, Mr. , say that you were an Episcopa- 
lian?" "Yes, sir, that is my religion." "Where were 
you confirmed? " He did not seem to understand what 
was meant. After the Bishop's explanation of the rite 
he replied : " Oh, I never had that done to me." " Where 
were you baptized?" "I never was baptized." "In- 
deed," said the astonished Bishop. "'How is it then 
that you told me that you were a member of the Epis- 
copal Church?" "Well, parson, when I was at " 

naming a mining camp in an adjoining Territory, " one 
of your kind of preachers came along and held a meet- 
ing in the billiard hall. I was there, and when I heard 



OBLIGATIONS TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 

them say, ' We have left undone those things which we 
ought to have done and we have done those things which 
we ought not to have done/ I said, 'that hits me ex- 
actly, I am one of them kind of Christians,' and that is 
why i say that I am an ' Episcopal ; ' and parson, if 
you think it necessary, I want them things that you 
were a telling about done to me when you come again." 

Strange as it may seem to many, this man rather 
than that deluded woman had the true idea. His only 
title to Church membership was the recognition of the 
fact that he was a sinner, both by commission and 
omission, and a manifest desire to do better. Of course 
the Bishop, after due instruction, would baptize, con- 
firm and admit him to the Holy Communion. It is sur- 
passinglv strange that men and women who have heard 
the Gospel all their hves, should still suppose that none 
ought to come to Baptism or Confirmation or the Holy 
Communion who are not prepared to stand and make 
the Pharisee's profession of religion— " God, I thank 
Thee that I am not as other men are. I am converted. 
I am not a sinner." But, as all are sinners, and those 
who say they are not, deceive themselves and the truth 
is not in them, the salvation of the world depends upon 
the sinners that are in the Church. They are the salt of 
the earth without which all would perish. Not that a 
bad man in the Church is more pleasing to God and has 
brighter prospects of heaven than a good man outside, 
but that the place for all who would serve Christ is 
inside. 



Some imagine that by remaining non church mem- 
bers they escape the responsibihties of professing Chris- 
tians. But this is by no means the case. The Gos- 
pel makes identification with the Kingdom of Christ 



28 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



obligatory upon everj man and woman, and refusal to 
fulfill this obligation in no degree lessens responsibility ; 
for the Gospel rule of life is binding upon all alike. In 
Christian lands, such as ours, Church members and non 
church members are under one and the same law. In 
that great day when all must give a strict account of 
the deeds done in the body, we shall not be judged by 
different standards. 

As Bishop Hugh Miller Thompson says : ' It is one 
of the prevailing delusions and one, we fear, which the 
common pulpit seldom reaches, to suppose that a man 
is free to accept or refuse the responsibilities of the 
Christian hfe — that ' the professing of Christianity 'is the 
taking up of new and quite voluntary dutie^s. We dis- 
tinctly write it down a delusion ; and such a shallow de- 
lusion that it will stand no test. It is a flat contradic- 
tion of human life, and of the facts of human life that 
stare us all in the face. The profession of Christ is not 
the taking up of a single duty which is not binding on 
ever}^ man already, at least in lands like this. The 
baptized man has bound himself to nothing which is 
not on the unbaptized man as well. The communicant 
is measured hj no rule which is not used righteously 
also for the noncommunicant. There are not two 
classes of people in a Christian country, under two dif- 
ferent laws — the 'professors' under one, and the 'non- 
professors' under another. By God's divine ordering 
of human life, we are elected to Christianity. Why, w^e 
cannot tell. It is His 'good pleasure.' It is the fact, 
that is all we know about it, and all that, as sensible 
people we should care to know. Our ])lain business is 
to 'make the election sure.' " 

Let none, therefore, stand aloof from the Church, 
either upon the pharisaical plea of righteousness, or 
upon the publican's plea of sinfulness, but let all do 



THE CHOICE OF A CHUECH. 



29 



their duty to Christ, to themselves and to the \Yorld, by 
becoming faithful, humble, unostentatious, and, so far 
as possible, consistent members of the Church. 

II. 

THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 

IF we only get to Heaven,-' says a dear old lady, 
in her arm-chair, her face beaming with good na- 
ture and kindly Christian feehng, which we would 
not rudely violate for the world: ^'If we only get to 
Heaven, it will never be asked by what road we came." 
We trust that the tranquillity and radiancy of the 
lovelv creatures, of whom this good woman is a repre- 
sentative, will not be too much disturbed or obscured if. 
in accordance with our sense of duty, we try to make it 
appear that more thought and care than is customary 
should be exercised in the selection of a Church in which 
to become a member. Usually a person when he has per- 
ceived the duty of confessing Christ by identification with 
His Church and has made up his mind to discharge it, 
feels at liberty to unite with that Denomination which 
may chance to be his preference. This in the majority 
of cases is determined by some accident of circumstan- 
ces and environment, as, for instance, the Church rela- 
tionship of parents and friends, the size of the Denomi- 
nation, its social status in that particular place, or its 
advantages fi^om a business point of view. 

Xow there is nothing wrong about this, if the assump- 
tion that we are free to follow natural preference in the 
matter of Church membership can be supported ; for tak- 
ing this freedom for granted, why should not a man 
in°the choice of a Church, as in other affairs of hfe, 
act with reference to those who are near and dear to 
him and to the furtherance of his social and commercial 



30 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



interests? But a moment's reflection will convince all 
thoughtful persons that ^\e are not in the enjoyment of 
this assumed liberty. We are under a law that requires 
us in this, as in all matters of importance, to be guided 
by principle, not by preference. The conscience of all 
will bear witness to the truth of the assertion that a 
man, in the choice of a profession or business, should be 
influenced not by his inclinations, but by the prospect 
of service to God and man. We may imagine a young 
man with life before him strongly inclined to the profes- 
sion of the law or of medicine, although he is thorough- 
ly' convinced that the need for him is greater, and that 
he would be more useful, in the ministry. In such and 
all analogous cases, a person is not at liberty to follow 
his preference. Duty to God and man lays upon him 
the obhgation of denying himself and of taking up his 
cross and following Jesus. 

The duty of such a course is quite as apparent in the 
choice of Church relationship. If God were equally 
pleased, and if our opportunities for usefulness were the 
same, no matter what body of Christians we join, then 
indeed we might follow preference, for there would be no 
principle at stake. But would God be equally pleased, 
and would our opportunities for usefulness be the same? 
These are questions which should be candidly and con- 
scientiously considered by every non church member who 
has made up his mind to do his duty, and equally so by 
any who, without a proper understanding of the claims 
of this subject upon histhoughtful attention, has already 
united with some one of the numerous rehgious bodies 
about us. 

There is a great advantage in the choosing of a 
Church from principle rather than preference; for, be- 
sides promoting self-respect and contentment, it enables 
one to give a manly and thoughtful reason for his choice. 



THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 31 



A person who is knoyvn to entertain a deep-seated and 
rational conviction that the Church with ^Yhich he is 
identified has superior claims to his allegiance, will al- 
ways have an influence over those who have been guided 
by mere preference or circumstances in the choice of 
their Church relationship. This is illustrated by an an- 
ecdote told of a parishioner by one of our Clergy. A well- 
instructed young woman of his Church married a Denomi- 
nationalist. Upon returning home for a visit a year 
or so later, her old pastor inquired, " How about Church 
attendance? You go with your husband, I presume? " 
''Oh, no, he goes with me," washerreply. "His Church, 
he said, was the Church of his choice. But mine, said I, 
of my principle. ' Preference must yield to principle, ' said 
mv good man; and he always goes to Church with me." 

We believe that it is God's will that we should belong 
to a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostohc 
Church of Christ, spoken of in the ancient Creeds. No 
other organization can make good a Divine claim to the 
allegiance of any man or woman. We contend also, that 
not only are we under no moral obligation to belong to 
an un-Catholic and un-Apostolic Christian body, but 
rather obliged not to belong to such, since our doing so 
would tend to destroy the unity of Christ's Kingdom, 
and hinder His holy conquest of the world. It may be 
a good thing for a man to found a new fraternity, or to 
become a member of human societies, such as the Ma- 
sons, Odd Fellows, or Knights of Pythias, but it is 
wrong for him to estabhsh, or to identify himself with, 
a human church. 

But since there are many bodies of Christians, each 
claiming to be a httle more according to the mind 
of Christ and the Apostles than any of its rivals, it 
becomes necessary to investigate the several grounds 
upon which this claim is based, in order that we may be 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 

able to make an intelligent choice among them. Then, 
if, in the end, we yet fail of reaching the truth, we at 
least shall have done our best to discover the will of 
God in regard to our Church affiliation; and al- 
though we may join a schismatical body instead of a 
true Church, we nevertheless shall not be held to have 
been thoughtlessly or willfully guilty of the great sin of 
schism. It is quite likely that some will never be able 
to decide among " the churches," and that they may 
make this inability an excuse for remaining non church 
members. To such I would say: Join any Christian 
body that acknowledges Christ to be the Divine Saviour 
of the world, rather than none. The identification of 
yourself with any Denomination that administers Holy 
Baptism ^'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost," makes you a member, not of 
that Denomination only, but also of the One, Holy, 
Catholic and Apostolic Church. The fact that Baptism 
does not make us members of a Denomination, and 
that all duly baptized persons are members of one 
universal Church of Christ, is not generally known and 
appreciated as it should be. 

There are three conceptions of what is necessary to 
constitute an organization of Christians a true branch 
of the Catholic Church of Christ. 

1. According to the Koman conception of the Church, 
there are, properly speaking, no branches; for the Church 
of Kome, so widely diffused throughout the world, is 
the only Catholic and Apostolic Church that has ever 
existed, or ever can exist. It is claimed that the Pope 
is the sole representative of Christ on earth, and that 
only by allegiance to him can a person be identified 
with Christ and His true Church, These are sweeping 



THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 



33 



pretensions. Their ver}' boldness and magnitude are 
well calculated to awe and fascinate the minds of the 
unsophisticated. "As," says Mr. Gladstone, "adver- 
tising houses find custom in proportion, not so much 
to the solidity of their resources, as to the magnilo- 
quence of their promises and assurances, so theological 
boldness in the extension of such claims is sure to pay, 
by widening certain circles of devoted adherents, how- 
ever it may repel the mass of mankind." 

There are, however, unanswerable objections to the 
Roman claims, a full consideration of which will require 
a separate lecture.t For the present it must suffice 
simply to observe that they were unknown in the ear- 
liest and purest ages of the Church. The peculiar posi- 
tion of Rome as the chief city of the world early tended 
to the undue exaltation of her Bishops or Popes, ^but 
they are on record as repudiating any exclusive right 
or claim to lordship over other Bishops and Churches. 
Even so late and great a Pope as Gregory I., Bishop of 
Rome from a.d. 590 to a.d. 604, rebuked John IV., 
Patriarch of Constantinople, who, it is interesting to 
note was the first to style himself the "Ecumenical 
Patriarch" or "Universal Pope." "This title," wrote 
Gregory, "is profane, superstitious, haughty, and in- 
vented'^ by the first apostate. St. Peter is not called 
universal Apostle. No one of my predecessors ever con- 
sented to use so profane a title. Far from Christian 
hearts be that blasphemous name. I confidently affirm 
that w^ho calls himself, or wishes to be called, universal 
Priest, is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist." 

2. A satisfactory discussion of the Denominational 
conception of the Church also will require a lecture 
devoted exclusively to its consideration. § What we 
say at this time must necessarily be fragmentary. By 

f Lecture II. $ Lecture III. 
C.A.— 3 



34 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



the Denominations we mean all the Protestant bodies, 
except those that are comprised within the Angiican 
Communion. The chief of the Denominations, in the 
order of their organization, are the Lutherans, a.d. 
1517; Congregationalists, a.d. 1571; Presbyterians, 
A.D. 1592; Baptists, a.d. 1644; and Methodists, a.d. 
1739. According to the conception which prevails 
among these and all Denominations of later origin, any 
Christian is at liberty to collect about him persons of 
like mind with himself, aud to form a society for the 
preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the 
Sacraments. Such societies are mutually acknowl- 
edged to be so many true Churches. In theory, at 
least, these Churches are admitted to be one as good 
as the other. 

We are aware that Presbyterians, Methodists and 
Lutherans might protest, with some show of reason, 
that this is not a correct statement of their position. 
"We," they may say, "belieye in Ordination as firmly 
as do Episcopalians, but contend that Bishops and 
Presbyters are the same Order." But the force of this 
objection is turned aside by the consideration that 
those who make so much of the Presbytery when argu- 
ing against Episcopacy, show little or no regard for it 
when deahng with societies of Christians which confess- 
edly haye a self-constituted ministry. Such are recog- 
nized as standing upon the same footing with them- 
selyes. They freely exchange with their ministers and 
eyen receive them into fellowship, and give them pas- 
torates without reordination. This they could not 
do if the Presbyterian regime were held to be by Divine 
appointment essential to the constitution of a vahd 
ministry. Mr. MacLean, a writer who has given con- 
siderable space to this subject, speaking of Scotch and 
English Presbyterians, says that they, '' and the other 



THE CHOICE OE A CHURCH. 



35 



bodies which are separated from the ancient Church, 
are now agreed in saying that it does not matter 
whether there is any succession or none at all. The 
Nonconformist bodies do not claim to have any suc- 
cession going back to the Apostles, or going back at 
all more than a few generations at most. They all 
really derive the authority of their ministry from the 
congregation, that is, from below instead of from 
above.*^ They mostly hold that any assembly of 'be- 
lievers' mav appoint a man, either with or without 
^ the laying on of hands, to the Holy Ministry. For 
this is the way in which the mjnistry of all Noncon- 
formist bodies, or almost all, first began." Else- 
where he writes: "Scarcely anyone now holds the 
behef that a succession of sacred ministers must be 
passed on through an unbroken line of Presbyters. The 
Presbyterians have almost entirely ceased to hold it, 
and most of them hold, with the other nonchurchmen, 
that the Christian congregation can appoint its own 
ministers." 

It is said that there are above three hundred 
Denominations. According to their principles a man 
can have his choice among them ; or, if none of them 
accord with his ideas, he may start one to suit himself. 
This is doubtless the prevaihng view with professing 
Christians in America; but, taking the world at large, 
there are probably not more than one-tenth who hold 
it. And there is an increasing number of the adherents 
of the Denominational system who have more or 
less serious misgivings as to whether or not a church 
which they might see fit to found upon their prefer- 
ences in regard to doctrine or government, would 
really be a true branch of the One, Holy, CathoUc and 
Apostohc Church of Christ. They realize that it is not 
lawful for men to make new books written since the 



36 



CHUECH MEMBEESHIP. 



Apostles' day and to pretend for them that they 
should be received as of Divine authority. And, they 
inquire, if the most learned, gifted and best men who 
have lived since the Apostolic age cannot make a New 
Testament, or add so much as a syllable to it, how can 
any found a new Church? Moreover, they perceive that 
the principles of Denominationalism would be rejected 
by human organizations such as the Masons, Odd 
Fellows and Knights of Pythias, and ask themselves, if I 
cannot found a new and independent lodge, how can 
I found a new and independent Church? And if I, 
in my day, cannot start such a Church, how is it that 
Luther and Brown and Calvin and Knox and Williams 
and AYesley and Campbell could do so in their days? In 
the estimation of all such as have regard to law and 
order and perceive the force of the historical argument, 
these questions can never be satisfactorily answered on 
behalf of Denominationalism. 

Take for example Mr. Wesley's Society. What is 
true of this, the largest of modern Denominations, is 
true of all. Is it a Church? If the Denominational 
reader insists that ''yes" must be the answer to this 
question, let me ask him, is Mr. Booth's Society, known 
as the Salvation Army, also a Church? As I under- 
stand it, the founder and adherents of this organiza- 
tion do not regard it as such ; nor have I met with any 
Denominationalists who do. But if Mr. Wesley's 
Society is a Church, why is not Mr. Booth's? They were 
both founded for the same purpose, and their methods, 
though differing in external details, are in principle 
essentially the same. The brass band, street parades, 
and services are, after all, only another form of the old- 
fashioned revival system. I am not here pronouncing 
upon this way of bringing men and women to Christ. 
For the purpose of my argument it is only necessary to 



THE CHOICE OF A CHURCHo 



37 



point out that according to all reports Mr. Booth and 
his army are using it quite as successfully as Mr. Wes- 
ley and his followers. Now, if the Methodists constitute 
a'^Church, why do not the Salvationists? True the 
latter do not claim to be a Church, but neither did the 
former at first. Indeed, I have seen it stated that in 
England the Wesleyans have not up to date formally 
claimed to be a Church, though they have gradually 
adopted the name. Their founder to the day of his 
death insisted that they were not such, but only a 
society. Will the Denominational reader occupy him- 
self in trying to give a satisfactory answer to the 
following questions: When did Methodism change 
from the state of a society to that of a Church? What 
were the steps in the transition ? Why is the Salvation 
Army not a Church ? What will it have to do to become 
one ? An observing traveler in New England sees over the 
doorway of primitive places of worship the original in- 
scription ' ' Meeting House, ' ' while, at the side, on the mod- 
ern bulletin board he reads " Congregational Church." 
What has happened in the interval represented by these 
designations to justify the change ? Whoever attempts 
to answer these inquiries will ultimately abandon the 
Denominational conception of the Church and conclude 
that, in the nature of things, mortal men cannot or- 
ganize a new Church any more than they can create a 
new Bible or place a new star in the heavens. 

Bishops of regular and canonical descent from the 
Apostles are the perpetuators of the Church. As a true 
lodge, through its legally executed charter, must be his- 
torically connected with its founder, so a true Church, 
through its lawful Bishop-successors of the Apostles, 
must be able to show an uninterrupted continuity back 
through the ages to Christ. One of the earhest of the 
Christian Fathers and Doctors tersely gave expression to 



38 



CHUECH MEMBERSHIP. 



the conviction which prevailed universally during the 
first fifteen hundred years when he said, "No Bishop, 
no Church." 

The oldest of the Denominations, and in many re- 
spects the most dignified and justifiable of them, the 
Lutherans, started about fifteen hundred 3^ears too late 
to make good its claim to be a regular and legitimate 
branch of the Church of Christ. There will ever remain, 
after all that can be said in justification of the fifteenth 
century and later organizations of Christians, room for 
reasonable and serious doubt concerning their CathoKc- 
ity. Such organizations, it will be perceived, would not 
have been recognized as true Churches in the earlier and 
purer, or indeed in any preceding, ages of the Church. 
They are not so regarded even now, and in all proba- 
bility never will be, by the vast majority of Christians. 
All Churches wdiose claim to Catholicity cannot be gain- 
said were founded by the Apostles, or by those who ''con- 
tinued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellow- 
ship, and in the breaking of bread and in the prayers." 
But the founders of modern Denominations were not 
Apostles nor did any of them, except the Wesleys, remain 
in communion with any undoubted branch of the Apos- 
tolic Church. John and Charles Wesley lived and died in 
the communion of our Mother Church of England . Would 
to God that Coke and Asbury had done the same ! 

Those who perceive the difference between a Divine 
and a human Church, and realize their obligation to be- 
long to the former rather than to the latter, can never 
be quite satisfied in any body of Christians which traces 
its origin to uninspired men, and is not the recognized 
offspring of any undisputed branch of the ancient Cath- 
olic Church. 

3. Finally, we have the Greek and Anglican conception 
of the Church, which is held by all Christians outside 



THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 39 



the Roman and Denominational Communions Ihe 
Greek Church is the -Church of Western Asia and East- 
ern Europe. It embraces nearly all Christians m Tur- 
key, Servia, Roumania, Greece, Russia, and is strongly 
represented in Austria. The Anglican or Enghsh Com- 
munion includes all Christians in Ml fellowship with the 
Church of England, and is composed of these parts: 
The Church of England, the Episcopal Church m the 
United States, the Church of Ireland, the Church of 
AVales, the Church in Canada, the Church in Asia, the 
Church in Africa, the Church in Australia, the Church m 
Scotland, and nine scattered Dioceses. 

The Greek and Anglican Churches are m practical 
communion with each other; at least, they agree per- 
fectly in regard to their conception of what is necessary 
to constitute a Catholic Church. According to their 
yiew there are as many branches of the true Church of 
Christ as there are nations in which there is an inde- 
pendent Church that can trace its origin to the Apostles. 
Each such Church has a right to self-goyernment, hay- 
mcr respect only to the general regulations of the great 
Co'uncils in which the whole of Catholic Christendom 
was represented. 

The Church, according to the Greek and Anghcan 
conception, may be compared to a fruitful yine which, 
haying been planted by the Apostles at Jerusalem, not 
Rome oyerran, eyen in their Hfetime, almost all of the 
then known world, pushing its tendrils into the seyeral 
political diyisions of Western Asia, Northern Africa and 
Eastern Europe. These branches were in many cases 
carried oyer by the Apostles themselyes, and through 
their planting took independent root. The successors 
of the Apostles, whom we call Bishops, haye been goiug 
on with this work eyer since, and they will continue to 
do so until the vine has taken root in eyery nation of 



40 



CHURCH MEMBEESHIP. 



the earth. Thus the one vine of the Church of Christ has 
as many roots as there are National Churches. If the 
parent root of any branch should wither and die, the 
offspring would flourish nevertheless, and if in future 
ages the surviving offshoot should send a branch back to 
the native land to take new root there, the second Church 
of that country would be essentially the same as the first. 
This makes it impossible that the gates of hell should 
permanently prevail against any branch of the Church. 
According to the Roman theory there is only one vine 
having its root in Christ through only one Bishop, who 
is the representative of only one Apostle. The branches 
of this vine overrun other countries, but they do not 
take root, and thus have no independent national hfe. 
There is, therefore, according to this view, no such thing 
as a National Church. Of course, if Romanists are right 
Anglicans and Greeks are wrong. 

An argument for the Scripturalness of independent 
National Churches, as well as for the equality of Bishops, 
might be built upon our Lord's commission to the 
Apostles, " Go ye therefore and teach allnations." Go 
ye," not go you, St. Peter, and all your successors in 
the See of Rome, but "go ye," all the Apostles and all 
their successors, and make disciples of "all nations," 
not make missions of Rome. Obedience to this com- 
mand, especially in the early days of Christianity, when 
the animosity between nations and the difficulties of 
intercommunication were much greater than at pres- 
ent, made the establishment of independent National 
Churches unavoidable. Take England for illustration. 
In obedience to Christ's command somiC early successor 
of one of the Apostles, not St. Peter— many think it was 
St. Paul himself— preached the Gospel and established 
the Church there. But even as late and intelligent a 
Pope as Gregory I. did not appear to know of the exist- 



THE CHOICE OF A CHUECH. ^1 



ence of the British Church until informed of it by St. 
Augustine about the year 600. Nor can this ignorance 
be accounted for by supposing that the Church was in- 
significant. Hundreds of years before, the British Church 
had been represented in great Councils by a delegation 
of Bishops and other Clergy. This was the case at Aries 
A D 314 and Ariminum, A. d. 359, and probably at 
Nice A D. 325, and Saidica, a.d. 347. And though the 
Church had undoubtedly suffered severely from the north- 
ern invasions, there still remained many Bishops, Priests 
and Deacons who congregated from all parts to the 
monasteries in the region of Walesa, Scotland and Ireland. 
The number of Bishops at that time we do not know. 
Bede says that seven were present at a conference with 
Augustine. A very ancient author reckons them as 
twenty-five Bishops and three Archbishops. 

The Anglican idea concerning self-governing Na- 
tional Churches is confirmed by the parable of the vine. 
At least the Roman doctrine concerning St. Peter and 
the necessity to Catholicity of communion with the 
Popes, is irreconcilable with our Lord's teaching m this 
passage : ^' I am the Vine, ye are the branches." Note 
that Christ is here represented as the stem and root, 
that the Apostles are only branches, that there is no m- 
dication that the branch represented by St. Peter 
should, by Divine right, overshadow the rest, and thafc 
there is not the faintest allusion to his successors m the 
See of Rome. In order to harmonize the parable with 
the Ultramontane conception it would have to be recast 
so as to read: While in the world I am the Yme, but 
after My ascension Peter and the Bishops of Rome, one 
after the other, until the end of the world, will take My 
place Therefore, in all time to come, he that abideth m 
the Pope, and the Pope in him, the same will bring forth 
much fruit, for without the Pope you can do nothing. 



42 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



If a man abide not in the Pope, he is cast forth as a 
branch and is withered. But since Romans interpret 
the Scriptures one way and we another, let us turn to 
the history of the earhest and purest ages for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining who are right. 

The very name of the Roman Church proves the 
National Church theory, and shows that originally she 
was regarded as one of the state Churches. Her official 
name is "The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church." 
Before the Council of Trent it was "The Holy Roman 
Church." The word "Roman" in this title is inexplic- 
able upon the hypothesis that the Papal Communion 
comprised the whole of Catholic Christendom. 

Again, the phrase "The Cathohc Churches," which 
occurs so frequently in the writings of both the Latin 
and Greek Fathers, cannot be explained in harmony 
with the Roman theory of Catholicity, for how could 
they speak of more than one Catholic Church, if "The 
Holy Roman Church" could make good its exclusive 
pretensions? St. Irenseus bears witness to the National 
Church idea when he says : " and neither do the Churches 
founded in Germany, nor those of Spain, in Gaul, in the 
East, in Egypt, in Africa, nor in the regions in the mid- 
dle of the earth, believe or dehver a different Faith." 

The Church is compared by the Fathers to the sea, 
as being diffused throughout all the world ; as being, 
like it, one; as having one name, that of the Catholic 
Church; and as containing within it many Churches 
with various names, as the ocean has many bays 
Avithin it. 

The so-called "Canons or laws of the Apostles," 
which were compiled about the end of the second century, 
distinctly mention the existence of independent state or 
national Churches. "It is necessary," runs the thirty- 
fourth canon, "that the Bishops of every nation should 



THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 



43 



know who is first among them, recognize him as such, 
and do nothing important without his assent." How 
unfortunate it is for the Papal claims that this cele- 
brated canon was not worded something like this: It 
is necessary that every Bishop throughout the world 
should know that he is subject to the Pope of Rome, and 
that he should do nothing of importance without first 
securing his consent. 

The local character of "The Holy Roman Church 
was recognized by Pope Innocent III., a.d. 1198-1216, 
Avho, though given to the most unwarrantable efforts 
towards the aggrandizement of. his position, says, in a 
letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople: "That is 
called the Church universal which consists of all the 
Churches and is named from the Greek w^ord Catholic. 
And in this sense of the word the Roman Church is not 
the Church universal, but a part of the Church univer- 
sal." Gregory IX., a.d. 1227-41, admitted that the 
Eastern Church was a part of the universal Church. 
Even as late as the middle of the sixteenth century, the 
Council of Trent, presided over by Pius lY., tacitly 
acknowledged the existence of National Churches ; for 
the creed which it formulated declared that Rome was 
"the Mother and Mistress of all Churches." It is im- 
possible to escape the logical conclusion that there 
must have been more than one Church in the minds of 
the Pope and theologians; for otherwise that of Rome 
could not be regarded as a mother. 

But if there be any room for doubt as to the opinion 
of Innocent III. and Pius IV., upon this subject, there is 
none whatever when we go back to the time of Pope 
Gregory 1. Bede records that among the questions sub- 
mitted to this Pontiff by St. Augustine, who, in a.d.596, 
had been sent by him to England, was the following: 
"When there is but one Faith, why are there different 



44 



CHUECH MEMBERSHIP. 



customs of Churches, aud why is one custom of Masses 
observed in the Holy Koman Church, and another in the 
Church of Gaul?" To which Pope Gregory made this 
answer: ''You, my brother, know the custom of the 
Roman Church, in which you remember that you your- 
self were brought up. But my sentence is, that whether 
in the Roman, or the Gallican, or in any Church, you 
have found anything which may be more pleasing to 
Omnipotent God, you carefully select, and with special 
instruction impart to the Church of the English, which, 
as yet, is new to the Faith, what things you have been 
able to collect from many Churches. For things are not 
to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the 
sake of things. From each individual Church, therefore, 
choose the things w^hich are pious, w^hich are religious, 
Avhich are right, and deposit these things — when you 
have collected them, as it Avere, into a bundle — in the 
minds of the English for their use." 

It cannot, therefore, be disputed, by any who ac- 
knowledge the infallibility of the Popes, that there were, 
at least in England and Gaul, National Churches which 
were separate and distinct from the Church of Rome. 
Until the Council of Trent, Roman writers, like those of 
the rest of the world, speak of the Churches of these 
countries, and of Germany and Spain, and, in fact, of 
every nation, in such away as to show conclusively that 
the idea of the Church's being one universal communion 
with Rome and her Bishop as its indispensable center, 
had not been conceived, or at least did not obtain, even 
among Ultramontanists,' until after the middle of the 
sixteenth century. 

If the present Roman theory and the interpretation 
given to the texts by which it is supported be correct, 
we ought to find that during the first three or four hun- 
dred years, all Churches were subject to the Bishop 



THE CHOICE OF A CHrECH. 



45 



of Rome, and that there was no such thing to be 
found in all the world as an independent ProTincial or 
National Church. On the other hand, if the Anglican 
theory be tenable, it will appear that during this period 
the Churches of the several political divisions through- 
out the vast Eoman Empire governed themselves with- 
out practically any reference to the Bishops of the 
capital city, or to any other external authority except 
the decrees of the General Councils. Those who have 
not taken the pains to investigate the truth of the 
representations of modern Romanists respecting their 
universal sway in primitive times, will be surprised 
when they learn the real extent of the original Diocese 
presided over by the Bishops of the Imperial city, and 
of the comparatively little influence and power that 
they exercised abroad during the first four or five cen- 
turies. The Hmits of the original Papal See were those 
of the city of Rome. Even after the development of the 
Patriarchal system the region in which the Bishop of 
Rome was first among equals Avas by no means co-ex- 
tensive with Italy. " Italy," says an Ecclesiastical geog- 
rapher, "from very early times was divided into two 
great Provinces. First, the Itahc Diocese, which com- 
prehended the present Kingdom of Lombardy, and the 
other countries subject to the Empire south of the 
Danube, of which Milan was the metropohs ; and, sec- 
ond, that of Rome, which comprised Tuscany, the 
recent States of the Church, Naples, Sicily and the Med- 
iterranean Islands of Sardinia and Corsica, usually 
known as the Loca Suburbicaria." 

Now, in the early times, the primacy of the Bishops 
of Rome was confined to the limits of the Suburbica- 
rian Churches, and his jurisdiction to the city. He 
had nothing whatever to do with the great Itahan 
Churches of Ravenna, Aquileia or xMilan. Ravenna was 



46 



CHURCH MEMBEESHIP. 



only about a hundred and eighty miles northeast of 
Rome ; Aquileia was three hundred miles in that direc- 
tion, and Milan about the same distance to the north- 
west. Since the jurisdiction of the Pope was originally 
confined to Rome, and his primacy was so far from be- 
ing coextensive with Italy itself, we might regard it safe 
to conclude that he had nothing to say about the gov- 
ernment of the Church in remoter parts of Christendom. 
But we are not left to conjecture on this point. There 
is abundant evidence, known to all readers of Ecclesias- 
tical History, that the Churches of Palestine, Asia Minor, 
Africa, France, Spain and England were all for the first 
six centuries, and some of them during the first thou- 
sand 3'ears, quite independent of Roman, or any other 
foreign, domination. In fact, such of these Churches as 
compose the great Greek Communion have never sub- 
mitted in the least degree to Papal dominion. 

Janus ' ' * says : There are many Xational Churches 
which were never under Rome, and never even had any 
intercourse by letter with Rome, without this being con- 
sidered a defect, or causing any difficulty about Church 
Communion. Such an autonomous Church, always in- 
dependent of Rome, was the most ancient of those 

Janus "■ was a mythological deity of the Latins who had the power of 
looking both ways at once. It was therefore, not without significance, assumed 
as the pen name by the profoundly learned German authors of " The Pope and 
the Council." a powerful protest against the proposition to declare the infalli- 
bility of the Papacy. It looked at the question from both the standpoint of 
history and expediency. Professor Schaff speaks of this work as • ' a book which 
will be memorable in the history of literature as one of the most crushing 
blows ever struck in any controversy. It is the work of more than one learned 
theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and deals with the question of in- 
fallibility from the root. It shows that the theological opinion in favor of Papal 
infallibility, as it has been held by many in other ages, was the o-ffspring of 
sheer imposture and wholesale forgery sustained and repeated from genera- 
tion to generation, and that many other claims of the Papacy rest on Uke 
foundation." There is considerable uncertainty about its authorship. It is 
supposed to be the joint work of Professors Von Bollinger. Friedrich and Hu- 
ber of the University of Munich. There seems to be little room for doubt that 
the famous Dr. Von Dollinger was the chief writer and the editor of the whole. 



r 



THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 



47 



founded beyond the limits of the Empire, the Armenian, 
wherein the primatial dignity descended for a long time 
in the family of the national Apostle, Gregory the Illumi- 
nator. The great Syro-Persian Church in Mesopotamia 
and the western part of the Kingdom of the Sassauida-, 
with its thousands of Martyrs, was from the first, and 
always remained, equally free from any influence of 
Eome. In its records and its rich literature we find no 
trace of the arm of Rome having reached there. The 
same holds good of the Ethiopian or Abyssinian Church, 
which was indeed united to the See of Alexandria, but 
wherein nothing, except perhaps^ a distant echo, was 
heard of the claims of Rome. In the West, the Irish and 
the ancient British Church remained for centuries au- 
tonomous, and under no sort of influence of Rome." 

This being notoriously the case, what becomes of 
the assertion of Romanists that the Church of England 
and the American Episcopal Church are not true 
branches of the CathoHc Church of Christ, because they 
are not under the dominion of St. Peter's successor m 
the See of Rome? May we not efi'ectually answer that 
if obedience to the Bishop of Rome is essential to Cath- 
olicity, the Church did not exist anywhere in all the 
world during the first six centuries after the Ascension, 
except in the little Diocese of Rome? Roman Catholics 
feel the weakness of their cause when pleaded at the bar 
of antiquity; hence, in the person of one of their most 
representative Cardinals, Manning, they have pro- 
claimed that to appeal to history instead of the Pope 
is a sin no less heinous than treason " and "heresy." 



Though the Roman view difi'ers widely and funda- 
mentally from the Anglican and Greek conception, 
there is manifest agreement in the belief that there can 



48 



CHrRCH MEMBEESHIP. 



be no such thing as a valid Church of Christ, to which 
it is the duty of non church members to belong, unless 
there be an historical connection with Him throuo'h 
Bishops in unbroken succession from the Apostles. We 
also agree that tlie Church is a Divine institution with 
a human mission. Denominationahsts think that it is a 
human institution with a Divine mission. We hold that 
the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven seeking men on 
earth; they that it is a society on earth seeking the 
Kingdom of Heaven. We think that it is an organi- 
zation for dispensing Christianit}^ ; they that it is for 
the attainment of Christianity. On these points Ro- 
mans, Greeks and Anglicans, who constitute about 
nine-tenths of Christendom, are agreed. 

It may as well be observed here as elsewhere that 
our argument in many places throughout this book is 
on behalf of the whole of the great ancient Catholic 
Church. If we were to contend thus for some nonessen- 
.tial feature of the Anglican Communion, however ad- 
mirable in itself, what we say might apparently for good 
reason be disregarded as an ebullition of the sectarian 
spirit; but as we speak for the whole of Christendom 
during the first fifteen centuries, and for the overwhelm- 
ing majority in our own time, it will surely be conceded 
that we are entitled to a respectful hearing. 

Even the small minorit^^ who maintain that connec- 
tion with Christ through Bishops of the Apostolic suc- 
cession is not necessar.y to the existence of a true 
Church, did not originally reject the Historic Episcopate 
because they thought it to be unscriptural, but because 
of the force of circumstances. Luther intended that his 
followers shoulcb be governed by regularly consecrated 
Bishops as soon as they could be obtained. Calvin ap- 
plied to the Church of England for Consecration ; Wesley 
to a Greek Bishop ; and Dr. Coke first to the American 



THE CHOICE OF A CHURCH. 



49 



and then to the English Episcopate. The hopes and 
schemes of these were in each case frustrated, but their 
advice and efforts should deter any of their admirers, 
who cannot like them plead necessity, from choosing a 
non-Episcopal Church for membership, and, also, their 
example should turn the face of all Lutherans, Presby- 
terians and Methodists towards Episcopacy. 

Of course AngUcans, Romanists, and Denomina- 
tionalists each cite Holy Scripture in support of the 
claim that their respective organizations are true 
branches of Christ's Church. In view of our wide differ- 
ences, outsiders cannot decide which is right, and what 
Church to join, unless they can determine which is the 
best interpreter of the New Testament teaching. Now 
it so happens that all of us are able to refer such to 
an interpreter, which we severally regard as eminently 
trustworthy. Romans direct us to the Pope, and 
Denominatioualists to their founders and bright lights, 
but the Episcopal Church has no modern Pope or 
founder ; so, instead of referring to personal interpre- 
ters, we have always asked inquirers to examine our 
claims in the light of the early Fathers and the history 
of the Church. We think that those who lived nearest 
the time of our Lord and the Apostles knew more con- 
cerning their teaching than the Christians of subse- 
quent ages, and that consequently what they said and 
did must be taken into account by those who would 
conscientiously and intelligently choose between the 
Anghcan and Roman Churches or amongst the various 
Protestant bodies of Christians. 

We are well aware that with tens of thousands of 
the representatives of the Denominations Avhich have 
sprung up in the course of the last three hundred and 
fifty years, the historical argument will be without 
influence. They contend that a Church, which it is 

C.A.— 4 



50 



CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 



quite within the power of a half dozen Christians to 
organize at any time, ma}^ have a much greater claim 
upon the allegiance of non church members than some 
undoubted branch of the Historic Church of Christ. 
But as time goes on, the test of history is sure to be 
applied more and more by the educated and reflecting 
who are guided by principle rather than by preference 
in the choice of their Church relationship, 



The Church for Americans. 



LECTURE II. 

OUR CONTROVERSY WITH RO/HANISTS. 

I. Papal Infallibility. 
II. Jurisdiction of the Pope. 
ni. Anglican Orders. 
IV. Leo XIIL's Decree of Invalidity. 



(51) 



AUTHORITIES. 



Bacox, The Vatican Council. 

Bajreow, The Papal Supremacy. 

Bexxett, The Distinctive Errors of Eomanism. 

Bright]sian, "Wliat Objections Have Been Made to English Orders. 

CoLLETTE, The Papacy. 

GoxE, Bp., Institutes of Christian History. 

CouEATEE, On English Ordinations. 

Dexxt, Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction. 

Gatee, Papal Infallibility and Supremacy. 

GzBBOXS, Oaedinal, Out Christian Heritage. 

Goee, Canon, Roman Catholic Claims. 

GrETTE, A^BE, The Papacy. 

Haddax, Apostolic Succession in the Church of England. 
HrssEY, On the Else of the Papal Power. 

Janus," The Pope and the Council. 
Jenkins , Eomanism: An Examination of the Creed of Pope 
Pius the TV. 
Jenein'S, The Privilege of Peter. 

Lee, The Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England. 
Leto, Eome During the Vatican Council. 

Ltttledale. Plain Eeasons Against Joining the Church of Eome. 
LiTTLEDALE. The Petrine Claims. 

MooEE AND BEINCE3IAN, The Auglicau Brief Against Eoman 
Claims. 

Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua. 

Paton, British History and Papal Claims. (2 Vols.) 

PuLLEE, The Primitive Saints and the See of Eome. 

Eamsay, Peof., The Church in the Eoman Empire. 

EoBEETSON, The Growth of the Papal Power. 

Robins, On the Claims of the Eoman Church. 

Salmon, Infallibility of the Church. 

Setmoue, Bp., TVhat Is Modern Eomanism? 

Smith, English Orders. 

Spencee, Papalism versus Catholic Truth. 

Steaens, The Faith of Our Forefathers. 

Teeat, The Catholic Faith. 

"Wilson, The Papal Supremacy and Provincial System. 

PAMPHLETS. 

BuTLEE, Eome's Tribute to Anglican Orders. 
Hopkins. John Henet, Monsignor Capel. 
LiTTLEDALE, TVords foT Truth. 

(52) 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH 
ROMANISTS. 



THE object of tbis lecture is to correct two widely 
spread, mistaken impressions concerning the 
Episcopal Church, namely, that her sympathy is, 
upon the whole, with Romanism rather than with 
Protestantism, and that she is not Catholic because she 
does nob form a part of the Papal Communion. 

Here and there is to be found a person who, having 
heard the claims of Rome, is possessed with the uncom- 
fortable misgiving that perhaps, after all, they are true, 
and that in standing aloof from the Pope he is living in 
disobedience to the will of God. The number of such 
among Protestants of every name is probably greater 
than is generally supposed. Certainly there are multi- 
tudes who are more or less disconcerted whenever they 
enter into an argument with Romanists, or read any of 
their controversial books. So far as non-Episcopalians 
are concerned their embarrassment is easily accounted 
for. They rest their whole case upon "the Bible and the 
Bible alone." Owing to the many-sided character of 
Revelation, Romanists are able to cite as many texts in 
support of their position as Protestants are. If excep- 
tion be taken to their interpretations, they reply : " We 
have as good a right to our opinion in such matters as 
you have to yours . " 

In the Roman controversy. Episcopalians have this 
advantage over other Protestants that, being connected 
in unbroken continuity with the Apostolic Church, and 

(53) 



OUE CONTROVERSY AVITH ROMANISTS. 

liavi]ig rid themselves of erroneous doctrines, and 
superstitious ceremonies which grew up in the Dark 
Ages, the,Y are able to wield the two-edged sword of 
Scripture and history. With this weapon in hand, and 
standing on the vantage ground of the Keformation, 
we are, indeed, weak Anglo-Catholics, if unable to van- 
quish the most powerful champion of the Papacy. Any 
person of average intelligence, who has attentively read 
one of our Reformation fathers, or such writers of this 
generation as Littledale, Salmon, Puller, Hopkins, Kip, 
Little, Ingram, and many others whose books are easily 
procured, is more than a match for all the Cardinal 
Gibbons and Newmans and Mannings that Rome can 
produce. An Episcopalian who has any hesitancy in 
meeting an intelligent Roman Catholic Layman, or 
even Priest, in debate, should request his Rector to 
deliver a course of lectures on the points of difference 
between Romanists and ourselves, or at least to lend 
him a book upon the subject. 



I. 

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 

SINCE the year 1870, behef in the inerrancy of the 
Pope, as the guide of mankind in the way of truth 
and life, has been made the condition of member- 
ship in the Roman Church and of salvation. Of all the 
articles which Rome has added to ^'the Faith once de- 
hvered to the Saints," this is the most remarkable, both 
for its presumptuousness and for its irreconcilableness 
to Scripture, reason and history. No wonder that its 
promulgation caused even the Ultramontane Com- 
munion fairly to reel with astonishment, and that it 
set on foot as a reformatory movement headed by Bol- 
linger, the greatest theologian of the Roman obedience 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



55 



if not indeed of modern times, who with other scarcely 
less distinguished scholars restored the "Old Catholic 
Church" to parts of Europe. Nor was this all. The 
knowledge that the Jesuits were bent upon having the 
Pope declared infallible gave a great impetus to the 
Liberal School of Romanists. Many, representing 
almost every country of Christendom, who could not 
quite justify separation even from a heretical Church, 
felt, nevertheless, in conscience bound to identify them- 
selves with this movement in ringing protests. 

There is little room for doubt that the resolution to , 
make the dogma of infallibility an article of faith would 
have been voted down, if free and full discussion had 
been allowed and if the vote had been at all representa- 
tive of the whole communion. But the Jesuits, with 
whom Pius IX. cooperated, took care to pack the Coun- 
cil with Italians and others whose votes could be rehed 
upon. As there was some reason to fear that the num- 
ber of these among the legitimate Cardinals and Bishops 
might fall short of an overwhelming majority, a host of 
native titular, or merely nominal, Ecclesiastical digni- 
taries was created. By this desperate expedient, Italy 
had an altogether disproportionate representation of 
two hundred and seventy-six delegates. France, with 
a much larger Roman Catholic population, had on]y 
eighty-four, Germanj^ nineteen and the United States, 
forty -eight. ' By one means and another Pius IX. made 
sure of the enormous majority of 576 votes out of 770, 
for the dogma of infallibility. All whose attitude was 
in the least doubtful were, as far as possible, persuaded 
to accept his lavish hospitalit\\ The Pope himself had 
his good-humored jokes about the numbers who com- 
promised themselves by living like princes at his ex- 
pense. "If they do not," said he, "make me infallible, 
they will render me fallire,^^ that is, bankrupt. 



56 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMAXISTS. 



After the resourceful Pontiff and Jesuits had done all 
they could to minimize the opposition, what little 
remained was, by one means and another, coerced so 
that only the most fearless could summon sufficient 
courage to raise their voices in debate ; and even these 
were prevented by strategy from speaking at length 
and by the notoriously bad acoustics, designedly so, 
of the hall erected for the meeting, were not heard 
except by a few in the region of the platform. The 
wary infallibilists instinctively felt that it would not 
do to give such Germans as the authors of "Janus," 
or Frenchmen as the Archbishop of Paris, or Amer- 
icans as Archbishop Kenrick, the floor for extended 
speeches. The proceedings were, of course, in the offi- 
cial language of the Koman Church, which all Prelates 
could understand and speak, though very few of them 
with sufficient ease to do justice to themselves and their 
subjects. "Quirinus" asserts that nine-tenths of the 
Prelates were condemned to silence simph^ from being 
unable to speak Latin readily and coherently through 
want of regular practice. And to this must be added 
the embarrassment occasioned by diversities of pro- * 
nunciatioH. It was impossible, for example, for French- 
men or Italians to understand an Englishman's Latin. 

The rules of order provided that the chairman, who, 
of course, was the Pope's appointee and trusted repre- 
sentative, might call any speaker to order for wander- 
ing from the question and deny him liberty to proceed. 
No appeal from the decision of the chair was allowed. 
The working of this rule is illustrated by the experience 
of Consignor Haynald, one of the most prominent 
Bishops in the opposition. In proof of a statement in 
his address he made some historical quotation, which 
showed that on the occasion of the reform of the 
Roman Breviary, a Pope had expressed an opinion con- 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



57 



trary to that of the present majority in the Council. 
Thereupon, the president immediately requested him to 
stop, and to descend from the tribune. Anything like 
debate was precluded. Offhand remarks were out of 
order. The speakers were required to give notice 
some days in advance of their wish to be heard. They 
had to speak in the order of their rank, without refer- 
ence to the relevancy of any speaker's remarks to those 
- of his predecessors. No reply was permitted. When, 
on the 3rd day of June, 1870, the debates of the Coun- 
cil on the main question were suddenly silenced, there 
remained on the list of those who had signified their in^ 
tention to speak, the names of some forty Bishops who 
were still unheard. They were forbidden, by the rules of 
the Council, to print their views for private circulation 
amon^the Bishops; and the spiritual prohibition was 
reenforced b.v police arrangements which locked every 
printing office in Rome against them. But while noth- 
ing derogatory to the dogma of infallibihty could be 
printed, the organs of the Pope had full freedom to 
publish what they pleased. 

However, an American Prelate, Archbishop Kenrick, 
of St. Louis, refused to be thus gagged. Claiming a 
"Divine right to express his convictions, on this most 
important question, to his fellow-Bishops," he sent the 
carefully prepared manuscript of his Latin speech to 
a printer in Naples, where, under the flag of an excom- 
municated king, might be found that liberty for the 
Bishops of the Church which was denied them in the 
States of the Church itself. A copy of this remarkable 
document afterwards fell into the hands of the author 
of "An Inside View of the Vatican Council," by whom it 
was translated, and made an appendix to his excellent 
volume. We shall have occasion frequently to quote 
from it, and from the other notable protests of German 



58 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



and French Romanists against the scheme which had 
been prepared for the Council by the Pope and the 
Jesuits. 

Another expedient that was resorted to, for the pur- 
pose of making sure of the end in view, was the post- 
ponement of the voting upon the dogma of infallibihtj 
until the intolerable Summer heat of Rome had driven 
two hundred and thirty-five Bishops from the Council. 
Of the delegates from foreign countries who were in the 
city when the vote was finally taken, many were de- 
tained from the session by sickness, and others would 
not attend because of their disgust at the way in which 
the council had been manipulated. A private vote was 
taken on July 13, 1870, only five days before the pro- 
mulgation of the doctrine of infalhbility, which resulted 
in four hundred and fifty-one affirmative and eighty- 
eight negative votes; sixty -two Bishops giving a quali- 
fied affirmative, and ninety-one abstaining from voting, 
although present in Rome. ''Among the negative votes 
were the Prelates most distinguished for learning and 
position, as Schwarzenberg, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop 
of Prague; Rauscher, Cardinal Prince- Archbishop of 
Vienna; Darboy, Archbishop of Paris; Matthieu, Cardi- 
nal-Archbishop of Besancon ; Ginoulhiac, Archbishop of 
Lyons; Dupanloup. Bishop of Orleans; Maret, Bishop of 
Sura; Simor, Archbishop of Gran and Primate of Hun- 
gary; Haynald, Archbishop of Kalocsa; Forster, Prince- 
Archbishop of Breslau; Scherr, Archbishop of Munich ; 
Ketteler, Bishop of Mayence ; Hefele, Bishop of Rotten- 
burg; Strossmayer, Bishop of Bosnia and Sirmium; 
MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam; Connolly, Archbishop 
of Hahfax; Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis." If 
scholarship instead of votes had counted, the minority 
would have been found to overweigh the majority bv 
as much as a giant outweighs a pygmy. Thus' the 



PAPAL IXFALLIBILITT. 



59 



article of infallibility was added to the Ultramontane 
creed by the Jesuits and ignorant Italians and not by 
the Eoman Church as a whole. 

All acconnts of the Vatican Conncil contain ref- 
erences to a remarkable coincidence. Its two most im- 
portant days were December 8. 1869. when the mag- 
nificent o^Dening session was held, and Jnly 18. 1870, 
when the A^ote npon the momentous question, whether 
or not the Pope should be declared infaUible. was taken. 
Both of these events occurred during the most terrific 
storms of which the oldest inhabitants of Eome had 
any recollection. The thunder and lightning were ap- 
palling, and the darkness was so great at midday that 
the ceremonies and business could not proceed without 
artificial light. A candle had to be brought in order 
that Pius IX. might see to read his decree of Papal in- 
fallibility. All this made a profound and lasting im- 
pression upon the members of the Council and the whole 
city. It was universally regarded as a manifestation 
either of Divine approval or disapproval of that which 
was commenced on the first day and consummated on 
the last. Of course Infallibilists took one view of it and 
Anti-Infallibilists the other. But the untoAvard events 
which foUowed in rpiick succession abundantly justified 
the opinion to Avhich the latter adhered. For "behold." 
says Professor Schaff, "the day after the proclamation 
of the dogma. Xapoleon III., the political ally and sup- 
porter of Pius IX.. unchained the furies of war. Avhich 
in a feAv Aveeks swept aAvay the Empire of France and 
the temporal throne of the infaUible Pope. His OAvn 
subjects forsook him. and almost unanimously A^oted 
for a new soA'ereign. whom he had excommunicated as 
the Avorst enemy of the Church. History records no 
more striking example of SAAift retribution of criminal 
ambition." 



60 



OUR COXTEOVERSY WITH RO^IANISTS. 



As Romanists speak of the doctrine of Papal infalli- 
bility so as to create the impression that the difficulties 
in the way of its acceptance are not nearly so insupera- 
ble as is popularly supposed among Protestants, we will 
here quote the decree and explain the qualifying clauses 
behind which they take refuge when we press them too 
hard. After the introduction, which is too long for 
quotation, this declaration follows : 

''Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition re- 
ceived from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for the 
glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catho- 
hc rehgion, and the sal ration of Christian people, the 
sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is 
a dogma divinely revealed : that the Roman Pontiff, 
when he speaks ex-cathedra, that is, when in discharge 
of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by 
virtue of his supreme Apostohc authority, he defines a 
doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the 
universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to 
him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infaUibility 
with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church 
should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith 
or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the 
Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not 
from the consent of the Church. But if anyone— which 
may God avert— presume to contradict this our defini- 
tion, let him be anathema." 

The Pope's infallibihty is hmited indeed to his ex- 
cathedra pronunciamentoes affecting the universal 
Church. But these phrases cannot be so explained as 
to exclude anj^thing except his informal conversations 
without making it impossible to determine when his 
words are infallible truth. Certainly all his allocutions, 
encyclicals, bulls and decrees are ex-cathedra proclama- 
tions, and as such they must necessarily, to the Roman 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



61 



mind, affect the " universal Church." In short, if the 
Pope is ever infallible, he is always so whenever he seri- 
ously assumes the character of a teacher, even though 
it be in the preaching of an ordinary sermon. 

The almost blasphemous doctrine of Papal infallibil- 
ity is partly accounted for (1) by the deep-seated desire 
of mankind for certitude in matters of religion, and (2) 
by the comparative freedom of the early Koman Church 
from theological error. 

But, before proceeding to consider the causes which 
led to the decree, let me observe, by way of self -justifica- 
tion, that I am not the first to make use of strong lan- 
guage in its condemnation. Professor Schaff, who as an 
historian enjoj^ed an enviable reputation for sobriety of 
judgment, did not hesitate to say that, "if the dogma 
is false, it involves a blasphemous assumption, and 
makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of St. 
Paul's prophecy of the man of sin, who ' as God sitteth 
in the temple of God, showing himself off that he is God.' " 
"The fundamental error of Rome," says the same au- 
thor, "is that she identifies the true ideal Church of 
Christ wdth the empirical Church, and the empirical 
Church with the Romish Church, and the Romish Church 
with the Papacy, and the Papacy with the Pope, and at 
last substitutes a mortal man for the living Christ." Be- 
fore the Vatican Council many Romanists took this 
view. " Janus " prophesied that if the Jesuits had their 
way, "In Rome itself the saying will be verified, 'Thou 
wilt shudder thyself at thy likeness to God. ' " And an 
anonymous writer of great learning and eloquence, in a 
"Pretended Speech of a Bishop in theCouncil," thus ex- 
presses his horror at what was contemplated : "Ah, if 
He who sitteth in the heavens is disposed to make heavy 



62 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



His hand upon us, as once on Pharaoh, he has no need 
to suffer the troops of Garibaldi to drive us out of the 
Eternal City ; he need only let us go on to make Pius IX. 
a God, as we have made the blessed Virgin a goddess." 

Nor is blasphemy the only evil that grows out of the 
doctrine of infallibility. For, if on the one hand it tends 
to idolatry, its opposite tendency is towards infideKty. 
As some one has pointed out, it is a very short way 
from the doctrine that Pius IX. and Leo XIII. were as 
much inspired as Peter and Paul, to the doctrine that 
Peter and Paul were no more inspired than Pius or Leo. 

1. There can be no doubt that men generally have 
felt the need of a Supreme and Omniscient Kuler who 
would authoritatively say, " This is the way ; walk ye in 
it." Komanists appeal to this well nigh universal crav- 
ing in their efforts to commend the doctrine of Papal 
infallibility to Anglicans and other Protestants. They 
contrast the divisions of Protestantism with the unity 
ofEomanism, and account for our unhappy condition 
by assuming that, because we are not in communion with 
the Pope, we are without a rehable guiding star, com- 
pass or pilot. Hence, in their opinion, we are like a ship 
tossed about by every wind of doctrine, wrecked and 
buffeted to pieces upon the rocks of heresy and schism. 
We shall see how much there is in this representation later. 
For the present, let us examine the claim to definiteness 
of teaching in matters of faith and morals with which 
Ultramontanists claim to be blessed in their Pontiff. 

They have the canonical Scriptures. When Protes- 
tants accuse them of rejecting or ignoring the Bible, 
Romanists contend that it is either an ignorant or a 
malicious misrepresentation. They say that they con- 
sider themselves just as much bound as we do to make 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



63 



its revelations and precepts their rule of life, and cite 
a decree of the Council of Trent in proof of this. Not 
only are they obliged to have reference to all the books 
which we recognize as canonically forming a part of 
Holy Scripture, but to those also which we regard as 
apocryphal. So far, therefore, as the Bible is concerned, 
Romanists have less of definiteness by fourteen books 
than Protestants. 

The Denominational wing of Protestantism does not 
acknowledge the binding force of Ecumenical enactments, 
but Romanists and AngKcans do. We do not, however, 
make belief in them, except as they.pertain to the Creeds, 
necessary to salvation. Here again Episcopahans have 
a decided advantage over Ultramontanists ; we recognize 
only four, or at most six, General Councils, because 
these are all in which the whole of Christendom can 
be said to have been fairly represented, or that received 
universal acceptance for their enactments; but there are 
fourteen or fifteen other synods, chiefly Italian, which 
are equally binding upon members of the Roman Com- 
munion. The fullest and most reliable collection of the 
ConciKary decrees is said to be a French work in tAventy- 
one large foho volumes. It is perhaps not too much to 
say that every page of this huge collection contains, on 
an average, at least some one doctrine upon which sal- 
vation is hinged. And, even if every Romanist could 
read French, and it were possible for him to go through 
all the ponderous tomes for the purpose of making sure 
that he observes every precept, the dread of damnation 
would nevertheless still haunt him, because many of the 
canons which were doubtless coupled with the usual 
anathema upon those who should disregard them, have 
been lost beyond recover3\ 

But we have really only begun to show the hollow- 
ness of Rome's pretension to satisfy our desire for 



64 



OUE CONTBOVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



definiteness. There remain the decrees, which no man 
can number, of the two hundred and fifty-six Popes. As 
the infallibility of the Bishops of Kome did not suggest 
itself to anyone until about fifty of them were in their 
graves, and as it was not officially proclaimed to be 
a verity before the lapse of more than eighteen hundred 
years, no great care was taken to preserve their official 
utterances, and hundreds and thousands of these, 
unquestionably, have perished. During the Avignon 
Schism^ which commenced in A. d. 1379 and continued 
until A. D. 1409, two and sometimes three rivals dis- 
puted the fictitious ''chair of St. Peter." It is impos- 
sible to decide between their respective claims. Even 
the great Councils held at Pisa and Constance could 
not do this. Accordingly they deposed all the Popes 
in turn, and elected a new one. Now this is the predica- 
ment in which Komanists find themselves. They do 
not know which of the claimants was the true Pontiff, 
and so of course cannot tell whose decrees to obey. 
Moreover, as if for the very purpose of creating as 
much confusion and uncertainty as possible, Papal 
decretals are said to be infallible only when spoken 
ex-cathedra. There are no less than eleven theories 
as to when the Pope so speaks. 

Finally, to cap the climax of Eoman indefiniteness, 
after the Bible, the Councils, and the Popes, come the 
writings of the Saints and Doctors of both the West and 
the East. Even the number of these cannot be accu- 
rately^ ascertained without laborious research, and 
what remains of their writings could scarcely be thor- 
oughly read in a long lifetime by one v/ho was at lib- 
erty to devote himself wholly to the task. It has been 
facetiously said of Duns Scotus, one of the Doctors who 
flourished in the thirteenth century, that "he wrote 
more than ten men could read in a generation and 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



65 



more than a hundred could understand ! " Those whom 
Romanists reckon as Latin Fathers form two hundred 
and twenty-two thick volumes ; the Greek, one hundred 
and sixty -seven ; total, three hundred and eighty-nine. 

The only reply that Ultramontanists can make to 
our representation of indefiniteness, is that the com- 
mon people are not expected to concern themselves 
about all this. They look to the Priests for guidance. 
But the Priests are not infalKble. Besides, in nine cases 
out of ten, yes, in nine hundred and ninety-nine out of 
a thousand, they are practically no better off than the 
Layman, for, if the doctrine of Papal infallibility be 
true, they do not, and no man can, know the millionth 
part of that which is necessary to salvation. 

Nor is there more of doctrinal stability than of certi- 
tude in the Papal Communion. Since the time of the 
illustrious Bossuet a staple argument of Romanists 
against Protestants has been based upon the variations 
of belief among us. There is no denying the fact that 
there is a great deal of truth in this charge, in so 
far as the non-liturgical and non-Episcopal bodies of 
Christians are concerned. But however this may be 
with respect to them, we are safe in making the asser- 
tion that the Anglican Communion, in the course of the 
last three hundred years, has manifested less of insta- 
bility than the Church of Rome. In fact, it cannot be 
shown that we have departed in any important partic- 
ular from the position which we occupied immediately 
after the Reformation. Our Prayer Book, which in- 
cludes the Creeds and Catechism, has remained essen- 
tially the same. It certainly will not be pretended that 
this can be said of the Roman book of worship and 
standards of doctrine. Some of these have been ma- 
terially changed within the present generation. For 
example, thirty years ago "Keenan's Catechism" was 

C. A.— 5 



86 



OUE CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



recognized by the Komanists of Scotland, Ireland, Eng- 
land and America as an eminently orthodox exposition 
of the things most surely believed among them. It 
was highly recommended by many Bishops, including 
Cardinal Manning. All the editions of this popular 
manual of instruction and controversy which appeared 
before the year 1870, contained the following question 
and answer: "Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope 
in himself to be infallible? " "A. This is a Protestant 
invention: It is no article of the CathoKc Faith: No 
Papal decision can bind under pain of heresy, unless it 
be received and prescribed by the teaching body; that is, 
by the Bishops of the Church." Of course this with all of 
the same import has been omitted and exactly the con- 
trary doctrine substituted in the post-Vatican editions. 

It is remarkable that the very history of Bossuet's 
great work on the Variations among Protestants, illus- 
trates how little advantage can be gained for the 
Roman Church by the arguments which it contains. It 
was approved by one Pope and disapproved by an- 
other; applauded by the Archbishop of Rheims, and 
condemned by the university of Louvain ; censured by 
the Sorbonne in the year 1671, and in the next century 
declared by the same learned body to be a true exposi- 
tion of the Catholic Faith. And whatever may have 
been the success of this great controversialist against 
those who rejected the Papal Communion, it is beyond 
denial that, during the controversy concerning Papal 
infallibility, he proved at least as formidable against 
the Itahan section of his own Church. 

The bare list of the heretical changes in the Roman 
creed is enough to show that the faith of the Anglican 
Communion is by comparison like the Rock of Gibral- 
tar beside a sand heap. In a. d. 754 the Church of 
Rome introduced the worship of Saints; in a. d. 787 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



67 



she authorized the use of images and relies in religious 
worship; in A. d. 1123 she forbade the Clergy to marry; 
in A. D. 1215 she proclaimed the supremacy of the Pope 
and the doctrine of transubstantiation ; in A. d. 1414 
she withheld the Cup from the Laity; in A. d. 1438 the 
lucrative doctrines of purgatory and indulgences were 
invented ; in a. d. 1439 it was first officially declared that 
Christ instituted seven Sacraments; in a. d. 1854 the 
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was 
promulgated ; and in A. d. 1870 the infallibihty of the 
Pope was asserted. "Janus " calls attention to the fact 
that "the very names the Popes assumed or accepted, 
mark the broad division between the earlier and new 
Gregorian Papacy. To the end of the twelfth century 
they had called themselves Vicars of Peter, but since 
Innocent III. this title was superseded by Vicar of 
Christ. In fact, the gulf between the position and rights 
of a Gregory I., and the pretensions and plenary power 
of a Gregory IX., or between a. d. 600 and a. d. 1230, 
is as wide as from Peter to Christ." Surely, of all Chris- 
tians our Koman brethren have the least of doctrinal 
certitude and stability. 

The author of an able article in one of our maga- 
zines is right when he says : " There is no royal road to 
certainty; no organon for the summary extinction of 
doubts. As much in the sphere of religion, as in the 
social and political domains, infaUibility and perfection 
are mere dreams of the imagination." And, after all, it 
is questionable whether the deflniteness of which Ro- 
manists make so much and have so httle, would be de- 
sirable, even if it were attainable. "It would," as the 
Bishop of Vermont observes, "have saved the Church 
much perplexity, much discussion, if she had been able 
to refer her questions and doubts as to points of faith 
and morals to an infallible guide and teacher. But she 



68 



OUE CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



did not. And we can see what she would have lost had 
she been able to do so. Out of all the discussion, debate, 
and controversy, in Council and in treatise, the weigh- 
ing of evidence, the pondering of arguments, through 
much perplexity, in spite of some mistakes and blun- 
ders, the Church advances, hke the individual, in the 
knowledge of God, and in an intelligent apprehension of 
His mind and will. We gain first a practical working 
assurance, then a growing certainty. God, who surely 
hates sin more than He hates error, wills us to be freed 
trom both ; but as He has not made sin impossible, so 
neither error." 

But Anghcans are not left quite so hopelessly adrift 
as Ultramontanists represent. For the Bible is our 
guiding star, history our compass, and conscience our 
pilot. If these be faithfully followed there can be no 
doubt that, though for one reason and another we may 
now and then deviate more or less widely from the true 
course, we shall nevertheless drop anchor at the last in 
the haven where we would be. 



2. The development of the doctrine of Papal infalli- 
bility is also due in part to the fact that, during the first 
centuries, the Bishops of Kome, though by no means 
exempt from error, were singularly free from heresy. 
The great majority of the Popes held unswervingly to 
the Faith as it had been handed down to them in succes- 
sion from the Apostles or defined by the Ecumenical 
synods. As compared wdth the other chief Sees, Eome 
certainly had a well-earned and enviable reputation for 
orthodoxy. It is therefore not surprising that the im- 
pression early began to prevail that the Faith, though 
it should come to be everywhere else corrupted, would 
always be kept whole and undefiled at Rome. Some of 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



69 



the early Fathers who hved at a distance from Kome, 
gave expression to this conviction. Ultramontanists 
make a great deal of such well-merited compliments. 
They see in them an evidence that the infallibility of 
the Pope was recognized from the beginning. But this 
is far from having been true. For long centuries, no 
one dreamed of accounting for the comparative im- 
munity of the Roman Church from error, upon the 
hypothesis of infallibihty. The reason they uniformly 
gave for her good fortune was the fact that Rome, 
being the capital of the empire, was the rendezvous 
of Christians from every part of the world who bore 
testimony to the Faith, as it was taught in their respec- 
tive Churches. Hence, if any error of doctrine arose, it 
was promptly detected and protested against. 

The comparative freedom of the Church of Rome 
from heresy is also accounted for by the fact that she 
was so far removed from the scenes of battle between 
the orthodox and heterodox. It is one thing to stand 
off at a safe distance looking on, and quite another to 
take part in the fray. The Faith was formulated and 
defended by the Greeks. The Latins accepted the Creeds 
and preserved them as they came from the Councils, but 
they had practically nothing to do with the making of 
them. If the Bishops of Rome are really the Divinely 
appointed infallible teachers of mankind in the Chris- 
tian Faith, the fact that they had so little to do with 
the formulation and promulgation of the Catholic 
Creeds, is inexplicable. Nor can the absence of any ref- 
erence in the universally accepted Creeds to the doc- 
trine in question, be satisfactorily explained upon the 
Roman hypothesis. If it were correct, after the article 
on the One Catholic and Apostolic Church," this would 
have followed: ''And I believe in the Pope of Rome, 
the successor of Peter and infallible Vicar of Christ." 



70 



OUE CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



But thoug'h the Popes were really exceptionally 
orthodox, nevertheless their doctrinal errors were 
numerous and serious enough clearly to disprove the 
infallibility which in our generation has been decreed of 
them. In fact, the dogma will not at all stand the test 
of history. The occupants of the so-called ''chair of 
Peter" have all along been guilty of as many errors, 
follies and sins as ordinary mortals would have been 
under similar circumstances. Even in their doctrinal 
decisions, which were certainly "ex-cathedra" utter- 
ances, they have frequently contradicted each other; 
and some of them have taught downright heresy. 

(1) Innocent I. and Gelasius I., who occupied the 
Papal chair in the fifth century, dogmatically main- 
tained that infants who died without receiving the 
Holy Communion, were without doubt damned. The 
Council of Trent, which assembled a. d, 1545, about a 
thousand years after their time, with a Pope at its 
head, rightly condemned and anathematized this mon- 
strous teaching. 

(2) Pope Victor, a. d. 192, approved of Montanism, 
and afterwards condemned it. This heresy consisted in 
the belief that its promoter, Montanus, by virtue of a 
revelation, was to introduce a new dispensation of the 
Spirit superior to that of Christ and his Apostles 

(3) Zephyrinus, a. d. 201-19, and Callistus, a d 
219-23, two Bishops of Rome, held and taught the 
Patripassian heresy, which is that God the Father be- 
came incarnate, and suffered with His Son. 

(4) Marcellinus, A. d. 296-303, was an idolater. He 
entered the temple of Testa and offered incense to that 
goddess. Romanists excuse him on the ground of in- 
timidation and human infirmity. To this Protestants 
reply that if this Pope had been really the Vicar of Christ, 
he might have died, but could not have apostatized. 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



71 



(5) Liberius, A. d. 352, for the sake of being recalled 
from exile, and reinstated in his See, consented to the 
condemnation of Athanasius, and openly professed 
Arianism. This heresy consisted in the denial of the 
Divinity of Christ. The apostasy of Liberius sufficed, 
through the whole of the Middle Ages, for a proof that 
Popes as Avell as other people could fall into heresy. 

(6) Zosimus, a. d. 417, at first indorsed as orthodox 
Pelagius and Celestius, who denied the fall and the 
necessity of Divine help in order to attain salvation. 
Afterwards iVugustine and the African Bishops com- 
pelled Zosimus to follow the example of his predecessor, 
Innocent I., in condemning these heretics. 

(7) Gregory I., a.d. 578-90 condemned as antichrist 
anyone who assumed the title Universal Bishop ; Boni- 
face III., A. D. 607, obtained this title from the parricide 
Emperor, Phocas. 

(8) Pelagius, in the sixth century, and Nicholas, in 
the ninth, made contradictory decisions upon the form 
of words necessary to vaUd Baptism. The earlier Pope 
declared that it is essential that the Sacrament should 
be administed in the name of the Father and of the Son 
and of the Holy Ghost ; and the later, that in the name 
of Christ alone is sufficient. 

(9) Stephen, about the year A. d. 750, officially de- 
clared that a marriage with a slave girl might be dis- 
solved and another contracted. In this he contradicted 
his predecessors, who had uniformly decreed such mar- 
riages indissoluble. 

(10) In A. D. 824, the Bishops assembled in synod at 
Paris spoke without hesitation of the "absurdities" of 
Pope Adrian, who, they said, had commanded an 
heretical worship of images. 

(11) Adrian II., A. d. 867-72, declared civil mar- 
riages valid; Pius YII., a.d. 1800-23, condemned them. 



72 



OUE CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



(12) Celestine III., a. d. 1191, pronounced the mar- 
riage tie broken when either party became heretical. 
Innocent III., a. p. 1198, annulled this decree, and Adrian 
VI., A. D. 1522, declared that it was a pernicious heresy. 

(13) Stephen YI., a. d. 885, caused the body of For- 
mosus to be disentombed, clothed with Pontifical robes, 
and cast into the Tiber, after he had cut off from it the 
fingers with which he had given the benediction, pro- 
nouncing him perjured and illegitimate. Stephen himself 
was afterwards imprisoned by the people, poisoned and 
strangled. His successor restored the body of For- 
mosus to Christian burial, and, at a council presided 
over by John IX., a. d. 898, the Pontificate of For- 
mosus was declared valid and all his acts confirmed. 

(14) The doctrine that Christ's body is sensibly 
touched by the hands and broken by the teeth, in the 
Eucharist — an error rejected by the whole Church— was 
affirmed by Nicholas II.', at the Svnod of Rome, in a d 
1059. 

(15) Paschal II., a. d. 1088-99, and Eugenius III., 
A. D. 1145-52, authorized dueling; Juhus II., a. d. 
1509, and Pius lY., a. d. 1560, forbade it. 

(16) Eugenius lY., a. d. 1431-39, approved the Coun- 
cil of Basle and the restoration of the Chahce to the 
Bohemian Church ; Pius II., a. d. 1658, revoked this 
concession. 

(17) Coming down to the time when the doctrine of 
Papal infallibility had been quite fully developed, and 
become the shibboleth of the Jesuits and of the dominant 
school in the Roman Communion, we have the amusing 
experience of Sixtus Y., a. d. 1585-90, in connection with 
the issue of his revised edition of the Latin translation 
of the Holy Scriptures. Imagining that the immunity 
from error which he believed he had inherited as Pope 
from St. Peter, would enable him to produce an absQ- 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



73 



lutely correct rendering, tie undertook, with much en- 
thusiasm, the task of doing the world this inyaluable 
service. In due time his revision of the Latin Bible 
came forth from the press with a great flourish of 
trumpets. Thebullby which it was introduced, declared 
that, inasmuch as it had been corrected from beginning 
to end by his own infallible hand, it was absolutely fault- 
less, and'^must supersede all imperfect renderings as rap- 
idly as copies could be supplied, and that in reprints 
the greatest care must be taken to prevent the shghtest 
deviation from the edition bearing his imprimatur. 
Printers and editors who should be either so careless or 
presumptuous as to change so much as a syllable, 
were then and there excommunicated. Surely no one 
will pretend that the Pontiff was not speaking ex-ca^i2e- 
dm when he issued his version of the Holy Scriptures, 
and anathematized all who would not recognize and ad- 
mit its absolute perfection. In view of all this, the sur- 
prise and chagrin of "His Hohness" may be imagined 
when the scholars about his court represented that, 
after a somewhat hasty examination of his work, they 
felt obhged to call his attention to more than two 
thousand glaring errors which, upon reference to the 
compositor's copy, were found to be in his handwriting, 
and to say that, unless the whole edition could be called 
in and suppressed, it would undoubtedly prove fatal to 
the doctrine of Papal infallibihty . Of course some way 
out of the difficulty had to be found. Among the sug- 
gested schemes, the one adopted was to ask for the re- 
turn of the copies which had been sent out, upon the 
ground of the discovery of some mistakes which had 
crept in through the carelessness of the printers. This 
apology appeared in the Pope's preface to the new 
edition^ in which the errors of this infalhble successor of 
St. Peter were corrected. That Sixtuswas guilty of the 



74 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



multitudiDous inaccuracies and base deceit of which we 
have spoken, we know on the authority of no less a per- 
sonage than the learned Bellarmine, upon whom the 
Pope chiefly relied for extrication from the embarrass- 
ing situation in which he found himself. In his autobi- 
ography the great Cardinal congratulates himself on 
having thus requited the Pontiff with good for evil; for 
he had put Bellarmine's work concerning controversies on 
the Index, because he had not maintained the direct, but 
only the indirect, dominion of the Pope over the whole 
world. ''And now," says one of the Eoman Catholic 
authors of the Pope and the Council, ''followed a fresh 
mishap. The autobiography, which was kept in the 
archives of the Roman Jesuits, got known in Rome 
through several traiiscripts. Hereupon Cardinal Az- 
zolini urged that, as Bellarmine had insulted three 
Popes and exhibited two as liars, namely, Gregory XIY., 
and Clement YIIL, his work should be suppressed and 
burnt, and the strictest secrecy inculcated about it." 
I have dwelt somewhat at length upon this instance 
of Papal fallibility, because it seems to me that in it- 
self it is suflicient to explode the Vatican dogma of in- 
fallibility. 

(18) But this unfortunate Bible, which as we have 
seen had already scored above two thousand points 
against the Papal doctrine, was destined to make still 
another. For in his bull announcing its pubhcation, 
Sixtus strongly recommended the general study of the 
Holy Scriptures; but Pius YII., a. d. 1800, severely 
condemns the reading of them by any except the Clergy. 

(19) Perhaps, after all, nothing can show the ab- 
surdity of the Papal claims to infallibility^ quite so well 
as the spuriousness of the rehcs, which, from time to 
time, the Popes, directly or indirectly, pronounced to be 
genuine. Even the gravest enumeration of those which 



PAPAL IXFALLIBILITT. 



75 



have been preserved at Eome, sounds like profane jest- 
ing. Among them are : 

''The sponge tinged with the blood of our Lord. 

" The spearhead which pierced His side. 

" The pillar at which He was scourged. 

" Thorns from His crown. 
Nails from His cross. 

"The Infant Saviour's cradle. 

''The table at which the Last Supper was eaten. 

"The cloth with which Christ wiped His disciples' feet. 

"Blood from Christ's side and the drops which fell 
from His brow." Among miscellaneous treasures of the 
same sort are showed : 

" A stone cast at St. Stephen. 

" Part of Aaron's rod. 

"Manna from the wilderness. 

" The espousal ring of the Blessed Virgin. 

"A piece of money received by Judas." Absurd as 
all this is, it is really no more so than the relics of 
which an extended account is given in the New York 
"Times" of Friday, September 20, 1895. Under the 
head-line "Kehcs of Many Saints" are described the 
achievements of a Brooklyn lady, w^ho organized a 
pilgrimage to Lourdes, where, at the famous grotto of 
Massavievelle, the Virgin Mary is believed byKomanists 
to have revealed herself repeatedly to a peasant girl 
in A. D. 1858. The spot at which this occurred is now 
resorted to by multitudes of pilgrims from all parts of the 
world. It is marked by a large Church, consecrated a. p. 
1876 in the presence of thirty -five Cardinals and other 
high representatives of the Pope. The Holy Father was 
so much pleased with the number and zeal of the Ameri- 
can pilgrims that he favored their fair leader with a 
" reliquary." " In appearance," says the " Times " cor- 
respondent, ''it is a silver frame, measuring five or six 



76 



OUR COXTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



inches from top to bottom. In the oval opening are 
exposed the relics, each very tiny and marked with its 
Latin name. The back of the oval can be removed, and 
underneath it is the seal of the Holy See, firmly affixed 
in red wax, to show that the contents remain intact as 
first arranged. A paper accompanies the reliquary, 
giving the names of the relics and vouching for their 
genuineness. This is the hst given in oi'der : 
Veil of the Blessed Virgin, 

''Cloak of St. Joseph. 

''Bone of St. Peter and St. Paul. 

''Bone of St. John and St. Andrew. 

"Bone of St. Philip Neri. 

"Bone of St. Augustine. 

"Bone of St. Dominick. 

"Bone of St. Francis de Sales. 

"Bone of St. Alphonsus. 

"Habit of St. Francis of Assisi. "Other valuable 

relics which were given to in Eome were: 

"A piece of the true cross. 

"A piece of thorn from the crown of thorns. 

"A piece of the Saviour's winding sheet. 

"A bone of St. Francis Assisi. 

"A bone of St. Clair of Assisi. 

"A rehc of the habit of St. Cecilia. The first three 
were in one rehquary. The piece of the cross is in the 
form of a tiny cross, and the other reUcs are on either 
side below it. The two bone relics are in still another 
reliquary, and the piece of the habit of St. Ceciha on a 
sheet of paper and stamped with a seal. Proper papers 
accompanied them all." 

(20) But passing over the above mentioned relics we 
fix upon the famous house of the Blessed Virgin in Lo- 
retto, because, upon the whole, it may fairly be said to 
put the finishing touches to this class of Roman absurd- 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



11 



ities. In order to escape the accusation of draAving 
upon my imagination, I shall give the story in the 
words of Professor Salmon, whose reputation for learn- 
ing and candor will shield him from suspicion. "You 
have all, I dare say, heard the story of the holy house 
at Loretto. The Virgin Mary's house at Nazareth, when 
the land fell into the possession of unbelievers, and wor- 
shipers could no longer resort to it, was carried by the 
angels across the seas on the9thof May, 1291— forllike 
to be exact— and, after taking three temporary resting 
places, finally settled down at Loretto in the year 1295. 
There, on the credit of so great' a miracle, it attracted 
many pilgrims, and was by them enriched with abun- 
dant gifts. Several Popes pledged their credit to the 
proof of the story, and rewarded pious visitors with 
indulgences. I possess a history of the holy house, 
written by TurselKnus, a Jesuit, and printed at Loretto 
itself in 1837, from w^hich I find that the story is proved 
by such irrefragable evidence that no one can doubt it 
who is not prepared to deny the power and Providence 
of God, and to remove all faith in the testimony of 
man. Mr. Ffoulkes, whose turn of mind was such that 
he seemed to find it as hard as the holy house itself to 
find a resting place, either among Protestants or 
Roman Catholics, neither accepted this story without 
inquiry, as might a thorough -going Roman Catholic, 
nor rejected it without inquiry, as might a thorough- 
going Protestant. He took the trouble of going 
both to Loretto and to Nazareth, and making labori- 
ous investigations on the spot; and the result of his 
inquiry was, that he came back thoroughly convinced 
of the fictitious character of the Santa Casa notwith- 
standing the privileges bestowed by so many Popes.'' 
(21) In the eighth century, Yirgil, Bishop of Salzburg, 
was condemned by PopeZachary, because he maintained 



78 



OUR CONTROVEESY WITH ROMANISTS. 



the spherical form of the earth, and the existence of the 
antipodes; he is now a saint of the Roman calendar. 
In the thirteenth century, Koger Bacon was imprisoned 
as an astrologer, and dealer in unlawful arts ; his ap- 
peal to Nicholas IV. only procured him a closer captiv- 
ity. A hundred years later it was still the same. Sev- 
eral Popes and their representatives in the infamous 
Inquisition condemned Galileo's system of astronomy, 
and in contradiction to it asserted that the sun goes 
round the world every twenty -four hours. Every good 
Roman Catholic was forbidden even to read a book 
which taught the mobility of the earth. The poor 
astronomer escaped the stake by confessing, through 
extreme fear of a horrible death, what he never believed, 
that the Church was right and he wrong. It is needless 
to say that the Popes and Doctors have long since 
abandoned the ground which their predecessors occu- 
pied, and have come over to Galileo's way of thinking. 
Kepler would have fared no better than his friend 
Galileo, had he lived at Pisa instead of Gratz; nor 
Newton, if his lot had not been fortunately cast in Eng- 
land, and a little too late for such interference. 

(22) Adrian I., a. d., 772-95, sent a long letter to 
the Council in defense of the use of images. It contains 
the following story in support of his argument : Con- 
stantine was at first a persecutor of the Christians, and 
put many of them to death— among others his own wife 
—for refusing to sacrifice to the gods of Rome. He 
was struck with leprosy, and, in order to effect a cure, it , 
was prescribed that he should bathe in infant's blood. 
The mothers of the children who were destined to fur- 
nish this very uninviting bath, however, prevailed on 
him by their tears to give up the idea, and he was 
warned in a heavenly- vision by St. Peter and St. Paul 
to apply to the Bishop of Rome, Sylvester, who had 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



79 



been driven by the persecution to take refuge on Mount 
Soracte. Coastantine accordingly sent for Sylvester, 
found him as described, and in short carried out the 
whole programme of the dream with the happy result 
of a complete cure. He then asked, who those gods, 
Peter and Paul, might be. Sylvester replied, they were 
not gods, but the servants of Christ. Constantine then 
asked, whether there were any images of them pre- 
served; and when the Pope sent for paintings of the 
two Apostles, and showed them, the emperor at once 
recognized them as the persons who had appeared to 
him in the vision. This was one of Pope Adrian's au- 
thorities for the use of images. Now it is to be observed 
that Sylvester was not Pope until the persecution was 
ended; that Constantine never persecuted in Italy; 
that, on the contrary, his coming to Italy put a stop 
to the persecution ; that he was not baptized by Sylves- 
ter, nor baptized at all until his last illness, and then at 
Nicomedia, most probably by Eusebius ; that there is 
no notice in history of his ever having been afflicted by 
leprosy, and it is most incredible that he ever was. 
The infallibility of Adrian, which ought to be the 
voucher for this story, involves here the veracity of the 
two Apostles, who are both made to assert in the vision 
what was not true. The ridiculous legend was probably 
taken from some spurious biography of the Popes. Did 
Adrian know the worth of his authority or not ? The 
answereither way is fatal to the dogma of Papal Infalli- 
bility. 

(23) A number of the Popes have proved themselves 
incompetent to distinguish spurious from genuine docu- 
ments. Adrian 1. and others cited the donation of Con- 
stantine; Nicholas I. the acts of the apocryphal Council 
of Sinuessa ; and his successors for ages the decretal let- 
ters. The work of Gratian, which was corrected by a 



80 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



commission appointed by Pius IV., and published with 
confirmation by Gregory XIII., is full of coarse and 
stupid forgeries, which needed no supernatural gift to 
detect. Sometimes they mistook one writing for another, 
as when Zosimus and others produced the Sardican 
canons for the Nicene, which Baronius, Bellarmine, and 
others ascribe to ignorance, as a less injurious imputa- 
tion than fraud. Innocent III. quoted for Holy Scrip- 
ture a passage written by Augustine. Books to which 
the Papal sanction is pledged as fully as possible con- 
tain undeniable misstatements. Thus the Koman Cate- 
chism, after describing the ceremonies used in Baptism, 
such as the use of salt and the chrism, adds that they 
were instituted by the Holy Apostles. 

(24) But the case of Pope Honorius, A. d. 625-38, is 
generally regarded as affording the most conclusive and 
unanswerable historical evidence against this decree of 
the Vatican Council. The facts which historians, hav- 
ing access to orginal sources of information, tell us with 
practical unanimity are the following: (1) Honorius 
taught in two ex-cathedra letters the Monothelite 
heresy, that is, that the human will was wanting in 
Christ, and that therefore He was wholly possessed and 
influenced by the Divine will. (2) The doctrine, which 
was a denial of our Lord's perfect manhood, was con- 
demned ; and Pope Honorius, as one of the chief heresi- 
archs, was excommunicated by the generally accepted 
sixth Ecumenical Council assembled at Constantinople in 
A. D. 680. ' " Not a single voice was raised in his defense. 
Even the Papal Legates had nothing to say." The 
anathema which accompanied the excommunication 
of the Pontiff, was repeated at the seventh and eighth 
Councils, which were held respectively in a. d. 787 
and A. D. 869. (3) All the successors of Honorius down 
to the eleventh century, included him in the eternal 



PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 



81 



anathema which they pronounced upon the authors and 
abettors of the Monothelite heresy. They undertook to 
see that he was condemned in the West as well as 
throughout the Elast and that his name was struck out 
of the Liturgy. Pope Leo 11. , in a letter to the emperor, 
strongly confirmed the decree of the Council, and de- 
nounced his predecessor Honorius as one who endeav- 
ored by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate 
Faith of the Roman Church. The same Pope says, in a 
letter to the Spanish Bishops: "With eternal damna- 
tion have we punished Theodore, Cyrus, Sergius, to- 
gether with Honorius, who did not extinguish at the very 
beginning the flame of heretical doctrine." Thus, after 
A. D. 680, for three hundred years the Popes formally 
and publicly recognized the right of General Councils to 
condemn and depose any of them that might fall into 
error of d octrine. There is, therefore, no getting around 
the fact that during the first one thousand years both 
Councils and Popes believed in the falhbility of the Bish- 
ops of Rome, in flat contradiction to the dogma promul- 
gated at the Vatican in A. d. 1870. As was said in on e of 
the many able protests by Romanists against the scheme 
of the Pope and the Jesuits: "This one fact, that a 
Great Council, universally received afterwards without 
hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by 
Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a 
Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a 
heretic, is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the 
notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the 
Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church." 

(25) Finally, we have what in itself should settle the 
question, namely, the confession of three of the Popes. 
John XXIL,A.D.' 1316-34, and Gregory XI.,a.d.1370-78, 
when dying, confessed their hability to error, and sub- 
mitted all their statements, whether spoken or written, 

C.A.— 6 



82 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



to the judgment of the Church. Pius lY., a.d. 1559-65, 
declared, in consistory, that he himself, like his predeces- 
sors, was falhble. Perhaps the most remarkable case 
was that of Adrian YL, a. d. 1522-23, who, while he 
was a professor at Louvain, maintained that the Pope 
might err in questions of faith, and support heresy by 
decisions and decretal letters. This is his declaration: 
"It is certain that the Pope can err even in matters of 
faith, asserting heresy in his determination or decree; 
for many of the Koman Pontiffs were heretics." He did 
not retract these words after becoming Pope, but re- 
printed them at Kome in the year 1522. There were 
certain Cardinals to whom this was a "hard saying." 
and, as the book had been pubhshed and republished in 
Eome itself, and had become extremely popular, they 
urged the Pope to reconsider his judgment. This he 
nobly refused to do. "His opinion," he said, "had al- 
ways been this in the case of other Popes, and he could 
not hold the contrary in his own case." 

My chief authorities for the above twenty-five para- 
graphs, anyone of which is sufficient to disprove the doc- 
trine of Papal Infallibility, are Salmon, Coxe, Robins, 
Hussey, Robertson, Littledale, Schaff, Gore, Glad- 
stone, Puller, Yon Dollinger, Hefele, and the unknown 
brilliant author of the "Pretended Speech of a Bishop 
in the Council."'' If the reader desires to pursue the 
subject further, he will find all that I have said in ex- 
panded form in the works of these unexceptionable 
authors, and much more of the same tenor which I am 
obliged to pass over for the want of space. 

*Before the Vatican Council there was a large school of "Liberal Catho- 
lics, composed chiefly of Frenchmen, Germans and Americans, many of 
whom were scholars of the first rank, who expressed their opinions freelv 
about the grosser errors and corruptions of their Church and the schemes of 
their bitter enemies, the Jesuits, for the aggrandizement of the Pope and their 
order. Our quotations from Roman authorities are chiefly from the writings 
of representatives of this School. " ^ 



II. 

JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 

INNOCENT III., A. D. 1198-1216, wrote to the 
Patriarch of Constantinople that "Christ has 
committed the whole world to the government of 
the Popes." In the famous ^x^W. Unam SanctRw, pro- 
mulgated about the year 1300, by Pope Boniface YIII., 
occurs this passage: "We therefore declare, assert, 
and define that for every human creature it is alto- 
gether necessary to salvation that he be subject to the 
Koman Pontiff." The closing words of the third chap- 
ter of the dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council, of 
A. D. 1870, are to the same effect: " If, then, any shall say 
that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspec- 
tion or direction, and not full and supreme power of 
jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in 
things which belong to faith and morals, but also in 
those which relate to the discipline and government of 
the Church spread thoughout the world, or assert 
that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all 
the fullness of this supreme power, or that this power 
which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both 
over each and all the Churches, and OA^er each and all 
the pastors and the faithful, let him be anathema." 

As the interpretation which Protestants put upon 
the above quotations is as a rule warmly repudiated by 
American Roman Catholics, it will be well to quote two 
or three passages from their own highest authorities. 
"No man can deny," says Archbishop Kenrick, in his 

(83) 



84 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



undelivered speech at the Vatican Council, '^that the 
purpose of Boniface in that bull was to claim for him- 
self temporal power, and to propound this opinion to 
the faithful, to be held under pain of damnation." 
Turrecremata says that "the power of the keys com- 
mitted to the Pope reaches all places, persons, and 
cases, and that in the authority of his jurisdiction he is 
superior to all the remainder of the Church;" Becan, 
that "the Pope has thesame power of making Ecclesias- 
tical laws, to bind the whole Church, as a secular prince 
for a kingdom or empire ; " De Castro, that "the denial 
of the Papal supremacy has been the great source of 
heresies;" Duval, that "the power of Bishops and 
Patriarchs in the Church is derived from the supreme 
monarch, the Vicar of Christ, just as the great offices in 
France are held of the king;" Bellarmine, that "no 
man can have Christ for his Master, who is not a sub- 
ject of the Pope." Cardinal Manning, speaking in the 
Pope's name, says: "I claim to be the supreme judge 
and director of the consciences of men ; of the peasant 
that tills the field, and the prince that sits on the 
throne ; of the household that Kves in the shade of pri- 
vacy, and the legislature that makes laws for king- 
doms—I am the sole last supreme judge of what is right 
and wrong." The follovying is from the Pope's official 
organ, the Civilita Cattolica, of March 18, 1871: "The 
Pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land. In 
him, the two powers, the spiritual and the secular, meet 
as in their apex ; for he is the Vicegerent of Christ, who 
is not only a Priest forever, but also King of kings and 
Lord of lords. The Pope, by virtue of his high dignity, 
is at the summit of both powers." Pope Innocent III. 
described himself as "the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the suc- 
cessor of Peter, the anointed of the Lord, the God of 
Pharaoh, short of God, beyond man, less than God, 



JTJEISDICTION OY THE POPE. 



85 



greater than man, who' judges all men, and is judged 
by no man." 

^ Of course, if the Popes are really all this, no man who 
has reference to the will of God in the choice of his 
Church relationship, can either become or remain a 
member of any branch of the Anglican Communion, be- 
cause the Churches of which it is composed, not being in 
subjection to the Bishop of Eome, fotm no part of the 
Catholic and Apostolic Church. Episcopalians contend, 
however, that neither Boniface VIII., nor any one of his 
predecessors or successors, was endowed with infaUibil- 
ity, and that the Episcopal Chnrch, by proofs drawn 
from both Holy Scripture and Ecclesiastical History, can 
be shown to be not a whit less Cathohc because of her 
independence of Papal government. Which of the par- 
ties in this contention is right? This is a question which 
we shall now proceed to answer. Though we shall con- 
fine ourselves as much as possible to the dispute con- 
cerning the jurisdiction of the Pope, it will be clearly im- 
possible to lose sight altogether of the controversy 
about his infallibility. For in showing that the univer- 
sal authority claimed by him has no foundation in 
Scripture or history, we necessarily undermine his pre- 
tension to exemption from error. 

Romanists base the Papal claim to universal do- 
minion upon the following texts : "Thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto 
thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatso- 
ever thou Shalt bind on earth shalt be bound in heaven; 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
loosed in heaven." (St. Matthew, 16:18-19). "I have 
prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou 



86 



OUE COXTEOTERSY WITH EOMAXISTS. 



art converted, strengthen thy brethren.'" (St. Luke, 
22:32.) '-Feed my sheep." (St. John, 21:17.) 

From these texts it is argued that St. Peter was con- 
stituted prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ : ■ • tha t 
all the power and office that was communicable from his 
Lord to Mm who should stand in His place as the head 
and center of the Apostles, was communicated to Peter, 
and to him was given the undivided pastoral care of the 
whole flock upon earth.'' This conclusion reached, it is 
further claimed that the successors of St. Peter in the 
See of Eome are Christ's sole representatives in the 
world, and that there can be no such thing as a true 
Church unless it be presided over by the Pope and in 
communion with him. 

Learned Anghcans have repeatedly shown, by Scrip- 
tural and historical arguments, v-hich the Eomanists 
have never been able to answer, that the texts referred 
to do not give the slightest support to these conclusions, 
and have proved that the Church is built on the founda- 
tion of the Apostles and Prophets, not of St. Peter alone : 
Jesus Christ Himself, not St. Peter, being the chief corner- 
stone. There is no intimation in the Xew Testament that 
St. Peter based any claims to authority upon Christ's 
words : nor is there one recorded instance of his exercis- 
ing any primacy or presidency, or even claiming it. The 
most that can with any show of reason be inferred from 
the texts under consideration, is a kind of personal 
leadership among the Apostles. But granting, for the 
sake of argument, that he was distinguished by such 
primacy, there is not the slightest ground for the claim 
that his successors in the See of Rome were to enjoy a 
similar distinction. The words of Bishop Barrow are 
true: '•'In all Divine Revelation the Bishop of Rome is 
not so much as once mentioned, either by name, or by 
character, or by probable intimation." 



JUEISDICTION OF THE POPE. 



87 



The great majority of the Fathers and Doctors un- 
derstood the chief of these texts, "Thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my Church," to refer to St. 
Peter's confession of Christ's Divinity. The venerable 
and learned Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis, 
in his famous discourse against the proposition to de- 
clare the Pope infalHble, contends that, because the creed 
of Pope Pius IV. makes it obhgatory upon them to in- 
terpret the Holy Scriptures according to the unanimous 
consent of the Fathers, Roman Catholics cannot make 
good their claim of supremacy for St. Peter. " If we 
are bound," says he, "to follow the great number of the 
Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain 
that the word Peter means, not Peter professing the 
Faith, but the Faith professed by Peter. In a remarkable 
pamphlet, printed in the fac-simile of the manuscript, 
and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, 
w^e find five different interpretations of the word 'rock,' 
in the place cited. 

"The first of these declares that the Church was built 
on Peter; and this interpretation is foUow^ed by seven- 
teen fathers, among them, by Jerome, and Cyril of 
Alexandria. The second interpretation understands 
from these words, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' 
that the Church was built on all the Apostles, wdiom 
Peter represented by Adrtue of the primacy. And this 
opinion is followed by eight fathers — among them, 
Origen, Cyprian, Theodoret. The third interpretation 
asserts that the w^ords, ' On this rock,' are to be under- 
stood of the faith w^hich Peter had professed— that this 
faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ 
to be the Son of the hving God, is the everlasting and 
immovable foundation of the Church. This interpreta- 
tion is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by 
fifty-four Fathers and Doctors; among them, from the 



88 



OUE CONTEOYERSY WITH EOMANISTS. 



East, are Gregoiy of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theophylact; 
from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from 
Africa, Augustine. The fourth interpretation declares 
that the \Yords, 'On this rock,' are to be understood 
of that rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ— 
that the Church was built upon Christ. This inter- 
pretation is followed b}^ sixteen Fathers and Doctors. 
The fifth interpretation of the Fathers understands 
by the name of the rock, the faithful themselves, 
who, behcYing Christ to be the Son of God, are 
constituted liYing stones out of which the Church is 
built." 

''I suppose," SRjs Professor Salmon, "there is no 
text on which the Fathers have given gTcater variety of 
interpretation than ' Thou art Peter ; ' and we have to 
go down far indeed before ayc find one \Yho discovered 
the Bishop of Rome in it." 

In their Collect for the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul, 
Romanists are taught to pray: ''Grant, we beseech Thee, 
Almighty God, that thou wouldst not suffer us, whom 
Thou hast established on the Rock of the Apostolic 
Confession, to be shaken by any disturbances." 

The remaining part of the text contains, indeed, a 
notable promise, and, if it were all that our Lord had 
said upon the subject, the supremacy of St. Peter over 
the rest of the Apostles could hardly be questioned. " I 
will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of HeaYen ; 
and whatsoever thoushalt bind on earth shall be bound 
in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven." 

But what was here promised before the Cruci- 
fixion to one Apostle, was, after the Resurrection, actu- 
ally bestowed upon each of them, without distinction, as 
a part of their common commission. "Then said Jesus 
unto them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father 



JUEISDICTIOlSr OF THE POPE. 



89 



hath sent me, even so send I 3^011. And when He had 
said this He breathed on them, and saith unto them, 
Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whosesoever sins ye re- 
mit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins 
ye retain, they are retained." By interpreting these 
texts in the light of each other, it is clear that 
the promise was made to St. Peter as the representa- 
tive of his fellow Apostles. This was the view of the 
great St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A. D. 391-430. 
He says: "Peter, in many places of the Scriptures, ap- 
pears as representing the Church, but especially where 
it is said of him, 'I will give yoil the keys.' Has Peter 
received these keys, and has not Paul received them? 
Has Peter received them, and not James and John, and 
the rest of the Apostles?" 

The context shows how St. Peter came to be repre- 
sentatively addressed. It was not because he was to 
be the first Bishop of Rome, St. Paul, or more proba- 
bly Linus, was this, but because he was the first to 
give expression to the growing conviction among the 
twelve that Jesus was none other than the promised 
Messiah, the Divine Saviour of the world. As he was 
the spokesman for the rest in this glorious confession, it 
was natural that they should through him receive the 
promise of stewardship— that is what the keys signify 
—in the Church or Kingdom which Christ would found 
on the rock of faith in His Divinity. " I do not think," 
says Canon Gore, "we can make it too plain how exchi- 
sively Western in growth is the Papal claim, as Rome 
understands it. Thus it does not appear that a single 
Greek Father of the first six centuries recognizes the 
connection, which Rome supposes to exist, between the 
promise to St. Peter and the position of the Pope.. 'In 
the writings of the Greek Doctors,' says 'Janus,' 'Euse- 
bius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Greg- 



90 



OUR COXTEOVERST WITH 



ROMANISTS. 



ories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any 
prerogatives of the Roman Bishop. The most copious 
of the Greek Fathers, St. Chrysostom, is wholly silent 
on the subject. ' Universal negatives are somewhat dan- 
gerous, but I do not think that this can be disputed." 

But owing to the fact that the promise was made 
through St. Peter, and because we see in the Acts of the 
Apostles that he was the first to exercise the power of 
the keys by opening the door of the Church to both the 
Je\Yish and Gentile world, Anglican scholars, follow- 
ing the early Christian writers, very generally grant 
that Christ may have intended to rew^ard him for his 
courageous avow^al, by making him the first among his 
equals, that is to say, the chairman -or official head of 
his brethren. There is no serious dispute between Ro- 
manists and Anglicans on this point. We part company, 
however, when they pretend, upon the ground of the 
primacy, which we are willing to admit, that St. Peter 
was the Vicar of the ascended Master to the Apostolic 
Church, and that, therefore, his successors in the See of 
Rome are Divinely commissioned to lord it over the rest 
of Christendom. 

Moreover, it has been settled almost conclusively 
that the Roman Succession is due quite as much to St. 
Paul as to St. Peter and that the Church of Rome does 
not owe her origin, except perhaps indirectly, to the latter 
of these Apostles, and that he was not the fir^t resident 
Bishop of "the Eternal City." Such authors as Professor 
Salmon on the one side and Dr. Dolhnger on the other 
substantially agree in this conclusion. The former of 
these great authorities in his chapter on " Peter's Alleged 
Roman Episcopate," says: "I am justified in thinking 
that candid inquirers need not differ very much on these 
questions, because I find that the results at which I 
had arrived independently are, on several points, in 
agreement with those obtained by von Dollinger in 



JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 



91 



his First Age of the Church, a book published while 
he was still in full communion with the Church of 
Rome, and was regarded as its ablest champion." 
Scaliger, the greatest scholar of the sixteenth century, 
says that "no moderately learned man can believe 
Peter's journey to Rome, his session for twenty -five 
years, or his capital punishment there." Ranke says 
cautiously and truly: "Historical criticism has shown 
that it is a matter of doubt whether the Apostle ever was 
at Rome at all." But however this may be, Wycliffe ex~ 
pressed the whole truth of the matter in a few words 
when he said : "As it does not follow, because Peter was 
personally called ' Satan ' by our Lord, that, therefore, 
he was made lower than any of the Apostles, so it does 
not follow, because certain privileges were given him 
personally in the words: 'Thou art Peter,' that, there- 
fore, he was made Pope and head of the Church after our 
Lord's ascension." 

According to the understanding of the Fathers, the 
second text relied upon by Romanists, "I have prayed 
for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art con- 
verted strengthen thy brethren," was intended to warn 
St. Peter of his pitiable weakness which manifested 
itself in the base denials of his Lord recorded in the 
same chapter, and to prevent him from falling away 
altogether. It is claimed by Roman divines that this 
prayer and precept of our Lord extends to all the 
Bishops of Rome, as St. Peter's successors, and that in 
speaking to St. Peter our Lord spoke to them. " Would 
they," asks Dr. Wordsworth, late Bishop of Lincoln, 
" be willing to complete the parallel and say that the 
Bishops of Rome especially need prayer because they 
deny Christ? Let them not take a part of it and deny 
the rest." 



92 



OUR CONTEOVEESY WITH EOMANISTS. 



The third text, "Feed my sheep," was regarded as 
Christ's gracious absolution of Peter upon his sorrow- 
ful repentance, and the restoration of him to the Apos- 
tolic office which had been forfeited. True, our Lord, in 
commanding St. Peter to feed his sheep, uses, as Roman 
Catholic controversialists point out, a word which con- 
veys the idea of ruling as well as feeding. But if they 
argue from this that to St. Peter alone was given the 
fullness of authority to feed the lambs and the sheep — 
the whole flock of Christ — how will they explain St. 
Paul's injunction to the elders of Ephesus, "Feed the 
Church of God?" It is the same Greek word. Mani- 
festly the Roman argument, if consistently adhered to, 
would prove that the Ephesian elders and their succes- 
sors were, by the use of this word, all created universal 
Popes. " Indeed, St. Panl expressly tells them that the 
Holy Ghost has made them overseers to all the flock, 
which is more than the Lord said to St. Peter himself." 
St. Peter received no more power from Christ than the 
other Apostles, for nothing was said to him which was 
not also said to them. All the Apostles were therefore 
equal to St. Peter in power. 



An exhaustive consideration of all the passages of 
Scripture which are irreconcilable with the Papal pre- 
tensions would be wearisome. It is therefore fortunate 
that the texts, as a rule, are so clear and conclusive 
that only a few need to be cited or alluded to, with but 
little comment. Upon two or three occasions our Lord 
refused to grant the request of His disciples to indicate 
which of them was to be chief. The last was on the 
night before His Crucifixion. His refusals will at once 
be seen to be unaccountable upon the Roman hypothe- 
sis. For, surely, if that were correct, the supremacy of 



JUKISDICTIOX OF THE POPE. 



93 



St. Peter would have been clearly proclaimed and 
recognized. 

Again, the claim of Ultramontanists cannot be 
reconciled with the fact that St. Paul received neither 
his commission as an Apostle nor his doctrine from St. 
Peter individually, or from the college of Apostles, and 
that yet they gave him the right hand of fellowship and 
intrusted him with the leadership in the evangelization 
of the Gentiles. As he himself tells us, he labored more 
abundantly than any of his colleagues, and this he 
did quite independently of St. Peter. "This fact," says 
one, "seems to have been Divinely intended to bar, 
from the very first, the Papal claim as false and unten- 
able." 

When St. Peter dissembled with the Jews, St. Paul 
not only rebuked him, but rebuked him publicly, show- 
ing that if St. Paul was not his superior, he was at least 
his equal. 

When Samaria had received the Gosjjel from Phihp, 
the Deacon, and converts needed Confirmation, and the 
subject came before the Apostles, did St. Peter direct 
Avho should perform the duty? On the contrary, the 
Apostles sent him, together with St. John ; and Christ 
says, "A servant is not greater than his lord; nor he 
that is sent greater than he that sent him." 

St. Paul speaks of: "That which comes upon me 
daily, the care of all the Churches." How fortunate 
it would have been for the Roman claims if St. Peter 
had said this of himself. 

"The same Apostle Paul," says a Roman Catholic 
writer, "enumerating the offices of the Church, mentions 
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, pastors and teachers. 
Is it credible that St. Paul, the great teacher of the 
Gentiles, would have left out the greatest of all the 
offices, the Papacy, if the Papacy had been founded by 



94 



OUR COXTEOVEESY WITH EOMANISTS. 



Divine institution? It seems to me that this omission 
would have been no more possible than a history of the 
Vatican Council that should make no mention of His 
Holiness, Pius IX." 

''But," says the same author, ''the thing which 
astounds me beyond all expression is the silence of St. 
Peter himself. If he had been what we say— the Yicar of 
Christ upon earth— he must have known it. If he knew 
it, how does it happen that he never once, not one sol- 
itary time, acted as Pope? He might have done it on 
the Day of Pentecost , when he pronounced his first dis- 
course ; but he did not. He might have done it at An- 
tioch; but he did not. He might have done it at the 
Council of Jerusalem; but he did not. He might have 
done it in his two epistles to the Churches ; but he did 
not. Can you imagine such a Pope as this ? " 

Of St. Paul it is said that to him the uncircum- 
cision were committed; that is, all but Jews were put 
under his headship. Hence, it is clear that if we Gen- 
tiles have a spiritual monarch, he is St. Paul, not St. 
Peter. 

The claims of Rome respecting St. Peter's superiority 
will appear in their right hght if. as Dr. Littledale sug- 
gests, we ask these questions : Suppose the rest of the 
Apostles decided one way and St. Peter separately de- 
cided the other way, which decision would stand? 
When St. Paul withstood St. Peter to the face, which of 
the two actually yielded ? See Galatians II : 11-14. 

The silence of our Lord is hard to explain on the 
Roman hypothesis. As a candid author of the Roman 
Communion observes: "Not only is Christ silent upon 
this point, but He has so Httle thought of giving the 
Church a chief, that when He is promising thrones to 
His Apostles, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, He 
promises twelve of them, without saying that one is 



JURISDICTIOX OF THE POPE, 



95 



to be higher than the rest, and is to belong to Peter. 
Surely, if he had wished Peter to occnpy a throne that 
should overshadow the rest, He would have said so. 
What must we infer from this silence? Logic tells us: 
Christ did not intend to make Peter the chief of the 
Apostolic college." 

The following golden words of a Franciscan monk 
show how utterly out of accord the Papal claim to sov- 
ereignty is, with not only the letter but the spirit of the 
New Testament: ''If the Bishop of Kome possessed a 
plenitude of power, such as the Popes falsely lay claim 
to. and such as many, through mistake, or in the spirit 
of adulation, concede to them, all men would be slaves; 
and this is plainly contrary to the liberty of the Gospel 
law." 

The hollowness of the Papal pretensions to supreme 
authority appears also from the history of the early 
Ecclesiastical Councils. If the Bishops of Kome were 
really by Divine appointment and inspiration the uni- 
versal sovereigns and unerring guides of Christendom, 
it is impossible to explain the obscure and subordinate 
position which some of them occupied in these dehbera- 
tive assemblies and the condemnation which was 
passed upon others. Indeed, upon the Ultramontane 
hypothesis, it is difficult to account for the great Coun- 
cils at all. If the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome had 
been recognized during the Conciliary period which em- 
braces, the five hundred years from the fourth to the 
ninth centuries, there would have been no need of the 
expense and trouble of bringing a host of fallible 
Bishops from distant parts to pass upon matters that 
might have been disposed of by a stroke of the Pope's 
pen. Under such circumstances, the only imaginable 



96 



OUR CO^vTTROVERST WITH ROMAKISTS. 



reasons for a Council would have been to give an 
opportunity of explaining to the heads of Dioceses, 
Provinces, and Patriarchates the decrees upon which 
"His Holiness" had resolved, and to add dignity and 
solemnity to the occasion of their promulgation. But 
if these had been the ends in viev>^, the Popes would have 
called each of the Councils which are recognized by the 
Greek and Latin Churches as Ecumenical, and their 
resolutions or decrees, passed not infrequently after 
many months of debate, would have served no purpose 
but to provide the delegates with an exciting pastime. 
At best their action could have had no other effect 
than that of a recommendation to the Pope, whose ap- 
proval and signature would have been required to 
make it a law. But it has been admitted hj the 
greatest Eoman scholars that "the Popes took no 
part in convoking Councils. All Great Councils, to 
which Bishops came from different countries, were con- 
voked by the emperors." The same authorities also 
admit that "neither the dogmatic nor the disciplinary 
decisions of these Councils required Papal confirma- 
tion." 

Even St. Peter himself, as we have seen, did not pre- 
side at the Council of the Church held at Jerusalem to 
settle the dispute which had arisen between the Jewish 
and Gentile converts. Nor were the so-called successors 
of St. Peter in the See of Rome the conveners, or ex 
oScio presidents, of am^ of the General Councils. These 
were all called by the reigning emperor. They were pre- 
dominantly, and some of them exclusively, Oriental. 
From the year 325, in which the first Couucil of Nicse 
Avas held, to the year 680, the date of the third Council 
of Constantinople, out of the one thousand one hun- 
dred and nine Bishops who attended the six great Coun- 
cils, only nineteen were from Western Europe. They 



JUEISDICTION OF THE POPE. 



97 



were "presided over," says Dr. Kurtz, "either by the 
monarch in person, or by a prelate chosen by the 
Council." 

Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, a province of Spain, was 
elected president of the first Nicene Council. The third 
Council, A. D. 431, which met at Ephesus, was presided 
over by St. Cyril of Alexandria. It was convened to 
consider a matter which had already been passed upon 
by the Pope, in a Eoman Synod, whose judgment was 
not regarded as conclusive. The Pope's legates, to- 
gether with the Patriarch of Constantinople, presided 
at the fourth Council, A. d. 451, which also acted upon 
matters that had already been considered by the Ko- 
man Bishop and Synod. The fifth Council, a. d. 553, 
contradicted with anathemas a doctrinal statement of 
Pope Yigilius, and compelled him to retract it, as well 
as to conform to its own contrary decision. The sixth 
Council, a. d. 680, as we have observed elsewhere, form- 
ally anathematized Pope Honorius I. as a heretic — a 
condemnation which was submitted to by the Roman 
Church, and for nearly a thousand years afterward was 
renewed by every one of her Popes at his coronation. 
In view of the simple truth in regard to the Popes and 
the Councils which may be read in the Church histories 
of reliable Roman, as well as Protestant, authors, 
what becomes of the Papal claims? 

In addition to the abundant evidence which has al- 
ready been given in support of the i^nglican and Greek 
contention, that the Bishops of Rome, during the first 
centuries, did not claim or exercise jurisdiction outside 
of their own Diocese, may be mentioned the correspond- 
ence w^hich they had with their brethren of the Episco- 
pate. If by Divine appointment they stood in the same 
relation to the rest of the Bishops as our Lord did to 
the Apostles, the early Church Fathers knew it, and their 

C. A.— 7 



98 



OUR CONTEOYEESY WITH EOMANISTS. 



knowledge of this vitalh^ important fact would be man- 
ifest in their communications with them, and they 
themselves would be evidently mindful of their unique 
position vYhile ioditing letters. But there is nothing in 
the epistolary remains of the first three or four hundred 
years to indicate that it ever occurred to any of the 
Popes, or to their contemporary Bishops, that they 
were not, in respect to their commission, on the same 
footing. They addressed each other just as the Bish- 
ops of the United States and our Primate do. On the 
one hand there was no assumption of superiority, and 
on the other no acknowledgment of inferiority, even by 
the occupants of the most out-of-the-way and obscure 
Dioceses. 

For example, St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage from 
A. D. 248-57, corresponds with the various Popes with 
whom he was contemporary, on terms of complete equal- 
ity. He speaks of them, and addresses them, as his 
brothers and his colleagues. "What is more notorious 
than that those, and those onl}^, could be colleagues who 
enjoyed the same power and the same prerogatives?" 
Councils used the same form of address. The Fathers of 
Constantinople inscribed their epistle to their " brethren 
and colleagues, Damasus of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, and 
others." The Council of Antioch addr^sed a synodical 
letter, about Paul of Sam_osata, to " Dionysius, Bishop 
of Rome, and Maximus, Bishop of Alexandria, and to 
all their fellow- servants. Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, 
and to the whole Church." Another Council at Constan- 
tinople wrote to "Damasus, Britto, Valerian," and 
others, uniting their names without any mark of dis- 
tinction, but calling them alike brothers and fellow-ser- 
vants. "It must not be supposed," observes Father 
Puller, "that this familiar style of address was due to 
the primitive simplicity of the Christians of that age.' 



JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 



99 



On the contrary, when the Priests and Deacons of Rome 
have occasion to write to St. Cyprian, they conclude 
their letter thus : ' Most blessed and most glorious Pope, 
we bid you ever heartily farewell in the Lord.' And 
again, when the same Priests and Deacons of Rome, 
writing to the Clergy of Carthage, have occasion to 
refer to St. Cyprian, they say: 'We have learnt that 
the blessed Pope Cyprian has, for a certain reason, 
retired.'" 

The equality of the Pope and other Bishops is even 
more apparent from the disputes which he had with 
some of them than from his friendly correspondence. 
Firmihan, Bishop of Cappadocia, applied language of 
unusual harshness to Stephen, Bishop of Rome. He 
compares him to Judas ; accuses him of " defaming the 
Apostles;" calls him "blind," "ignorant," "rash," 
" presumptuous," "a partaker with heretics,"— Stephen 
had called Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, whose part 
Firmilian was taking, " antichrist," " false apostle" and 
"deceitful worker." "Nothing, indeed, could well be 
more grievous than the spirit in which the conflict was 
carried on. Christian meekness and charity were sacri- 
ficed by both parties; there was certainly no restraint 
in the use of reproachful terms through any conscious 
inferiority to the Roman Bishop. Cyprian maintained 
his conclusion as strongly against Stephen as he would 
against any other Bishop ; he rebuked him as freely, 
and condemned him as severely. The anger of Stephen, 
on the other hand, is a proof of how he understood the! 
conduct of his opponent ;*- yet he does not venture to 
charge him with rebellion against the See, which is now 
said to be the center and source of unity. Harsh words 
he gave abundantly in reply, but he stopped short of 
the point which is indispensable to the papal argument." 
An appeal to local synods or General Councils some- 



100 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMAKISTS. 



times showed that the Pope was right, and then he had 
the satisfaction of a victory ; but, unfortunately for the 
Papal claims, quite as frequently he was convicted of 
error, and so had to bear the chagrin of defeat, and 
even of rebuke and condemnation. 

It should be remarked in this connection that there 
were times, before the rise of the Papacy, when the Sees 
of Carthage, Alexandria, Constantinople and Milan in 
turn temporarily quite overshadowed the See of Rome. 
This was sometimes owing to political circumstances, 
but more frequently to the great superiority of the 
Bishop or Patriarch over the Pope. Gregory Nazianzen, 
himself one of the Primates of Christendom as Bishop of 
Constantinople, said truly of his brother Patriarch, 
" The head of the Alexandrian Church is the head of the 
world." At a later period, Justinian's rescript also 
recognizes Constantinople as the head of all the 
Churches. At another time it was correctly said of the 
great Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, that he "presided 
not only over the Church of Carthage and over Africa, 
but also over all the countries of the West, and over 
nearly all the regions of the East and of the South 
and of the North." It is scarcely necessary to add 
that the presidency which St. Cyprian exercised was 
not, outside of Africa, a headship of jurisdiction, but 
one of love and honor, and, as a consequence, of 
influence. 

But though the Pope of Rome has not, by Divine ap- 
pointment, any jurisdiction over other Bishops and their 
Dioceses, yet at an early date the Church of both the 
East and the West conceded the primacy to him, and in 
the course of time he began to exercise a more or less 
universal and absolute supremacy over Western Chris- 
tendom. An explanation of how this came about will be 
necessary to show that the Catholicity of the Anglican 



jrRISDICTlOX OF THE POPE. 



101 



Communion is not in the least compromised by its pres- 
ent independent position. 

The universal primacy with which the Pope was hon- 
ored during several centuries, is accounted for by the 
development of the Patriarchal system. The Apostles 
were equal in authority, because they all received the 
same commission. As the authorized representatives of 
Christ they gave this commission and the authority con- 
nected with it to their successors, whom w^e call Bishops. 
When the Apostles and Bishops met for consultation 
and corporate official action, as they did more or less 
frequently from the beginning, it was necessary that 
one of them should be the chairman. Before the crea- 
tion of Diocesan Bishops, this privilege, by common 
consent, may have been accorded to St. Peter. When- 
ever a number of men associate themselves together 
for any purpose, some one of them comes to the front 
as a leader. In this instance, it would appear from 
the Acts of the Apostles, and from tradition, that St. 
Peter was the person who did so. It is probable that 
he was the oldest of the twelve. If so, this of itself, 
other things being eqaal, would single him out for 
honor. But it would seem that not only was he the 
senior, but that he was also by nature endowed above 
his fellows with the qualities of leadership. In order to 
account for the part which he took after the Ascension, 
until St. Paul becomes the central figure, there is no need 
of the Ultramontane hypothesis that he was designated 
by the Lord as Prince of the Apostles. Even if Koman- 
ists could substantiate this view, which is an impossi- 
bihty, before it would be of service to them in their 
controversy with the great Greek and Anglican Com- 
munions, it would be necessary for them to show^ con- 



102 



OUR CONTEOVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



clusively that the prerogatives of St. Peter had been 
duly made over to the Bishops of Eome in succession. 
There is not a scrap of evidence that they ever inherited 
anything from him, not even the primacy of natural 
leadership, which he appears to have enjoyed for a season, 
certainly not the supremacy which he never possessed. 

We have conceded that, owing to his age and nat- 
ural qualifications, St. Peter may have presided at 
most of the formal meetings of the Apostohc college. 
But as 'the Diocesan system developed, the Bishop of 
the city in which a Council was held, would take 
the chair without encroaching upon any known right 
of St. Peter. This was illustrated in Jerusalem, the 
first See City, by St. James, the first Diocesan. After 
his Consecration to be Bishop of the Mother Church, 
the Apostles had occasion to meet at their headquar- 
ters. As this is the only Council of which we have 
any New Testament record, we conclude that it must 
have been of exceptional importance. In view of the 
claims which Romanists make for St.Peter,the fact that 
not he, but St. James, was president, is inexphcable. 

In the course of time, when the whole Roman Empire 
was divided into Dioceses, the Bishops of each Province 
were accustomed to meet for consultation and legisla- 
tion. The Bishop of the Diocese in which the Provincial 
Council met presided, or at least his right to the presi- 
dency was for a long time recognized. But the transac- 
tion of business in the interim between the Councils re- 
quired an official head, and this was usually the Bishop 
of the chief city or of an Apostolic See. Out of this neces- 
sity it was that the Metropolitan system grew. Ulti- 
mately the Metropolitans were called Archbishops, and 
were generally, by courtesj^, conceded the right to pre- 
side at all Provincial Councils, whether held in or out of 
their own Dioceses. When it was necessary to decide 



JUEISDICTIOX OF THE POPE. 



103 



some question of more general importance, the Arch- 
bisliops and Bishops of two or more Provinces would 
come together for the purpose. At first the Archbishop 
of the Pro^ ince in which the meeting \Yas held presided. 
But after a time the confederation developed into the 
Patriarchal system, and its official head for the interim 
between Councils, who usually occupied the most impor- 
tant See of the whole confederation, was designated Pa- 
triarch, and conceded the right of presidency over these 
assemblies, whether held in his own or in another Arch- 
episcopal Province. 

The whole of Christendom was divided into five 
Patriarchates, namely, Eome, Constantinople, Anti- 
och, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Now and then it was 
found necessary, for the preservation of the faith and 
the unity of the Church, to hold a Council in which 
all the Patriarchates should be as fully represented as 
possible. These General Councils created the need of 
of an official head for the whole Christian world. This 
high distinction would, of course, fall to one of the 
five Patriarchs, and naturally to him who occupied 
the most powerful See, namely, the Pope of Rome. 

Every Bishop was originally called Pope, but as time 
went on the title was more and more restricted to the 
Patriarchs. Then, owing to various circumstances, the 
occupant of the Eoman.See had the distinction of being 
called the Pope." In later times the title was appro- 
priated almost exclusively to the Bishops of Eome, 
w^hile those of the other Patriarchal Sees were called 
Patriarchs. Each title is derived from a Greek word 
meaning ''father." Patriarch is the more dignified of 
the two, since it is applicable not so much to the head 
of a family as to the chief or ruler of a clan. 

It is worthy of note that England, probably by 
reason of its isolation and early political obscurity, was 



104 



OUE COXTEOTERST WITH EOMAXISTS. 



not canonically made a part of the Roman, or of any 
other, Patriarchate. Says an able writer on "Enghsh 
Orders:" Our contention is that Britain or any part 
thereof, as England, was never within any Patriarchate 
at anytime, and was never assigned by any Ecumenical 
Council to any Patriarchate. It was and is outside of all 
Patriarchates and therefore was and is independeot." 
The exceptional position of the Church of England was 
recognized by a Pope, in his treatment of one of the Arch- 
bishops of Canterbur}^ who, happening to be in Italj^ 
during the meeting of a Provincial Synod, made an 
effort to attend its sessions incognito. He did not, 
however, escape recognition. The Pope, having been 
made aware of his presence, introduced him as ''the 
Pope of another World " and insisted on his being 
seated with him upon the Papal throne. 

It was not then because of any prerogative inherited 
from St. Peter, but because their See City was the world's 
metropolis and seat of government, that the Bishops of 
Rome, with the development of the Patriarchal sj^stem, 
ca-me to be recognized as the first among equals. 

That the presidency enjoyed by the Roman Prelates 
was of human rather than Divine institution, is also 
evident from the legislation upon the subject b}^ several 
Councils. It was ordained at Constantinople, in a. d. 
381, "That the Bishop of Constantinople shall hold the 
first rank after the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople 
is new Rome." This decree was reiterated and more 
fully explained at the General Council of Chaicedon, a. 
D. 451. The fact that Rome was the only Apostolic See 
in the West, and that both St. Peter and St. Paul, the chief 
Apostles, suffered martyrdom there, also contributed to 
exalt its Bishop. "The reverence paid in the East to 



JUEISDICTIOX OF THE POPE. 



105 



Alexandria and Antiocli and Ephesus and other 
Churches was in the West monopohzed by Eome." But 
as Primus he had, of course, no canonical jurisdiction 
outside of his own Diocese. He had no more authority 
over his Episcopal brethren than Bishop "Wilhams of 
Connecticut, the present Primate of the American Epis- 
copal Church, has over Bishop Leonard of Ohio. 

Papal supremacy developed much later than the 
primacy and was limited to the AYestern Church. As 
the doctrine of infaUibiUty grew out of the widespread 
desire for an unerring religious teacher, so that of the 
Pope's right to universal dominion had at least one of 
its roots in the felt need of a Supreme Ruler, which has 
manifested itself in both the Old and the New Dispensa- 
tions, by the setting aside of the polyarchical for a mo- 
narchical regimen. God provided that the government 
of the Jewish nation and Church should be divided 
between the elders of the twelve tribes, Himself being 
Head over all. A similar provision was made by Christ 
for His Kingdom, which is a continuation and develop- 
ment of the old Church. He was to be its supreme 
Ruler and center of unity. His administrative repre- 
sentatives were to be the twelve Apostles and their suc- 
cessors. These were invested with equal authority, so 
that in their respective fields of labor they were quite 
independent of each other. 

We would not be understood to teach that in the 
early Church every Bishop was a law unto himself, but 
that none had a right to meddle in the administration 
of another s Diocese, so long as the Faith and the regu- 
lations which the college of Bishops had decreed in 
Council assembled, were not violated. It was, in the na- 
ture of things, necessary that the head of a Diocese 
under certain circumstances should be called upon by 
an higher authority to give an account of his steward- 



106 



OUE COXTEOTEEST WITH EOMANISTS, 



sliip. An aiithoritY that should be recognized as final 
was clearly indispensable to the well being of the 
Church. During the first one thousand years, this was 
found in the Ecumenical Councils, which possessed 
both legislative and judiciary functions, and bore 
much the same relation to the Diocesan and Provincial 
Synods that the Supreme Court of the United States 
bears to the other courts of the country. The Scriptu- 
ral warrant for these Councils and their essential value 
to the Church may be inferred fi^om the fact that the 
Apostles, themselves, set the example of convening 
them for the solution of difficulties which none of them, 
not even St. Peter, could solve. TTestern Christians re- 
peated the fault of the Jews in abandoning God"s gov- 
ernment for one of their own choosing, when they 
allowed the Popes more and more to supplant the Coun- 
cils and to lord it over their brethren of the Episcopate. 

The cii'-cumstances which led to this unfortunate and 
sinful exchange of the Episcopal polyarchy for a Papal 
monarchy were very much the same in both cases. It 
seemed to the worldly wise to be a necessary expedient 
for seh-protection against heathen enemies. Of course, 
when the Church in the ATest determined to have a king, 
it had no difficulty in finding a candidate who was head 
and shoulders above his rivals for the throne. AU eyes 
naturally turned to the Bishop of Kome, who had long 
been the Primus of Christendom. 

But the exaltation of the Papacy is by no means 
wholly accounted for by the people's desire for an Eccle- 
siastical monarch. They were indeed ready to invest 
the great Bishop of the Imperial City with extraordinary 
judicial powers and to make liim the center of unity 
in both Church and State, but they had no intention of 
going beyond this. The greatness which they may be 
said to have thrust upon him, though much more than 



JURISDICTION OF THE POPE. 



107 



the primacy, was far less than the supremacy. But for 
the ambition of the Popes, and the corrupt methods 
which the degeneracy and ignorance of the Dark Ages 
made it possible for them and their aggrandizers to em- 
ploy in its gratification, they would never have become 
more than supreme judges in cases which had been 
carried from the Diocesan to the Archbishop, afid from 
him to the Patriarch, without settlement. The Church 
alwavs has stood in need of a court from which there 
is no appeal except to a General Council, but it has 
never required a king other than the One who ever sits 
at the right hand of God. Fortunately for the world 
the Popes have not and never can attain the goal upon 
which, with astounding presumption, they have fixed 
their eyes. Xor, as has just been observed, would their 
efforts'^ to reach it have been crowned with anything 
like the measure of success which has been achieved, but 
for the unscrupulous use of the most reprehensible 
means. We must make along story as short as is con- 
sistent with clearness. 



When at length the combination of circumstances to 
which we have referred began to open a Uttle the door 
of dominion to the ambitious Popes, they found them- 
selves constantly embarrassed by its rubbing and stick- 
ing against the grain of tradition and history and of 
the ancient Concihary decrees and Patristic writings. In 
fact, it was discovered that everything would have to be 
either planed off a good deal or made over altogether 
before there could be any freedom of action. Accord- 
ingly, work was begun and vigorously continued 
throughout the Dark Ages. 

From first to last, there were a great many more or 
less systematic efforts to reconstruct history in the 



108 



OUE COXTEOYEESY WITH EOMANISTS. 



interest of the Papacy. One of the most important of 
these was made as early as the beginning of the third 
century, in a work of fiction which, however, purports 
to be the autobiography of Clement, who, at that time, 
was erroneously^ supposed to haye been the first occu- 
pant of the Eoman See. The object of the unknown 
author was to create the impression that the honor of 
being the first among equals, which had long been con- 
ceded to the Bishops of Rome, was not due, as had 
hitherto been belieyed, to the political greatness of the 
city oyer which he presided, but to the circumstance 
that St. Peter, who was represented, contrary to fact, 
to haye been the founder and Apostolic head of the See, 
had, shortly before his death, consecrated Clement to 
succeed him, and bequeathed to him and his successors 
foreyer the headship of the whole Church. 

Before the close of the ninth century, the Popes, by 
the mutual consent of the disputants, had frequently 
acted as arbitrators and judges in cases that natural- 
ly should haye come before the other Patriarchs. A 
record was kept of the decisions rendered in these ex- 
ceptional instances of appeal to Eome. As this busi- 
ness added greatly to the dignity and reyenue of the 
Roman Bishops, they grew more and more anxious to 
make it appear that they were, by Diyine appointment, 
the supreme judges of Christendom. So they made a 
great deal of the romance concerning St. Peter and 
Clement. But in pushing their claims, at eyery step 
they were asked such questions as these: If the%ight 
to adjudicate all difficult cases has been inherited from 
St. Peter by the Popes, why is it that, as the records 
show, appeals were not made to the Holy See from the 
beginning; and why do the canons forbid the carrying 
of cases beyond the Patriarch of the jurisdiction to 
which the litigants belong, and make it unlawful for all 



JtJElSDICTIOlS' OF THE POPE. 



109 



Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarchs to exercise any 
of their functions beyond their canonically defined bor- 
ders? What are known as the False Decretals of Isidore 
assisted greatly in getting rid of these embarrassing 
questions. The work in which they were embodied 
contained both genuine and forged canons of the 
Councils and judgments of the Popes. It has been 
established beyond dispute that they contain ninety- 
four spurious Papal Decrees, fifty-four of which are 
attributed to the first thirty -five Bishops of Kome. 
The rest are distributed along the intervening period 
to A. D. 851, so as to make the chain of appeals practic- 
ally continuous from St. Clement to the then reigning 
Pope. This gross forgery, owing to the uncritical age 
in which it was perpetrated, was not detected and ex- 
posed until the Reformation. Though the Bishops of 
Rome had very little if anything to do with the author- 
ship of the Pseudo-Clementine literature and the Isidor- 
ian Decretals, they are none the less guilty, for they 
vouched for their authenticity, and made use of them 
to change the government of the Church from a Divine 
polyarchy to a human monarchy. 

After the appearance of the decretals the canons of 
the Councils and the writings of the Fathers were rap- 
idly more and more corrupted by additions and sup- 
pressions. But by the twelfth century such tinkerings, 
extensive as they were, having been found to be in- 
suflacient, Gratian deliberately undertook the work of 
recasting the whole canonical code, so as to make it 
fit in with the new order of things. Thomas Aquinas, 
the intellectual giant of the thirteenth century, ac- 
cepted, apparently without misgiving, the whole mass 
of false Decretals, counterfeit Canons, and corruptions 
of Patristic writings, which had accumulated during 
five hundred years, and, after fusing them together 



110 



OUE CONTEOVEBSY WITH EOMANISTS. 



into a homogeueous wliole, and rounding out the work 
of fraud by additions from the spurious Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, built upon it his system of Papal dominion and 
infallibility which has continued to this day. "John 
XXII., in his delight," says "Janus," "uttered his 
famous saying, that Thomas had worked as many 
miracles as he had written articles, and could be can- 
onized without any other miracles, and in his Bull he 
affirmed that Thomas had not written without a spe- 
cial inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Innocent YI. said 
that whoever assailed his teaching incurred suspicion of 
heresy." 

The world has never witnessed such gross and all 
pervading literary frauds as those for which the Papacy 
is responsible. Everything which they and their ag- 
grandizers touched has been modified so as to square 
with the dogmas of universal dominion and doctrinal 
infalhbility. An old author, in connection with what 
he has to say about the corruption of the Fathers, 
gives a list of one hundred and eighty-sevea treatises 
cited by Koman writers, about the spurious character 
of which no doubt remains; and modern criticism 
could easily add to the number. He gives also a list of 
fifty passages corrupted in the genuine writings of the 
Fathers, and adds : "I have set down only five decades 
whereby you may conjecture of the rest, which for brev- 
ity's sake are omitted." 

Not even the Roman Breviary, or Prayer Book, has 
escaped. An author quoted by Canon Gore says : "The 
condemnation of Pope Honorius for heres}^ is recorded 
in the Roman Breviaries until the sixteenth centurj^, at 
which period the name of Honorius suddenly disap- 
pears. The theory of Papal infallibility was at that 
time being rapidly developed. A fact opposed it. The 
evidence for the fact is suppressed." "I have before me,'* 



JUEISDICTIOX OF THE POPE. 



Ill 



writes Pere Gratry, ''a Eoman Breviary of the year 
1520. printed at Turin, in which, on the feast of St. Leo, 
June 28th, I find the condemnation of Honorius :'In 
which synod were condemned Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, 
Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter who asserted and proclaimed 
one will and operation in our Lord Jesus Christ. 
I open the Roman Breviary of to-day,' "he continues, 
" and there I find in the instruction of St. Leo, June 
28th : ' In this Council Avere condemned Cyrus, Sergius, 
and Pyrrhus, who preached only one will and operation 
in Christ.' The trifling incident of a Pope condemned for 
heresy by an Ecumenical Council is simply omitted by 
the revisers of the Breviary in the sixteenth century. 
Father Garnier, in his edition of the Liber Diurnus, 
says, with a gentle irony, that 'they omitted it for the 
sake of brevity.'"' "One of the enrichments of the 
Breviary," pointed out by another Roman Cathohc 
writer, was the putting of Satan's words to our Lord in 
the Temptation, • I will give thee all the kingdoms of the 
world,' into the mouth of Christ, who is made to address 
them to Peter." These forgeries and mutilations in the 
interest of the Papal system were so astonishing, that 
the Venetian ]\Iarsigiio thought that in course of time 
no faith would be reposed in any documents at all, and 
that so the Church would be undermined. "It is im- 
possible," as Professor Salmon observes, "to think 
that if Roman prerogatives had rested on any Divine 
gift, it would have been necessary to bolster up the fab- 
ric with so enormous a congeries of fraud and lies." 

In cases wherein the light of modern learning and 
the art of printing have made it impossible to effect the 
necessary changes, the books have been placed upon the 
Index of works which may not be read by Romanists. 
Indeed, the reading of any book or article which 
contains anything derogatory to Ultramontanism 



112 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



is forbidden except to a few specially licensed contro- 
versialists. The Bible itself is popularly supposed, 
not without good reason, to be among such books. 
Certain it is that Scripture reading was for ages dis- 
couraged, and sometimes absolutely interdicted. For 
instance at theCouncil of Toulouse, A. d. 1229, the Laity * 
were forbidden to have in their possession any copy of 
the books of the Old or New Testament if translated 
into the vulgar tongue. This was the first synodical 
prohibition; there had been no instance of a law 
since the days of the emperors which showed the 
same hostihty to the Bible. When the Council of 
Trent met, a.d. 1562, the first business taken in hand 
was to prepare an Index of prohibited books. The 
work was intrusted to a committee of Bishops, who 
reported, concerning the Scriptures, that as the result 
of experience their translation into the vulgar tongues, 
and the indiscriminate use of them, has produced 
"more evil than good." The report was not made 
until there was no time left for its consideration by 
the Council; so the matter was committed to Pope 
Pius ly., who approved the part in which we are here 
interested. It reads as follows: "Since it is manifest 
by experience that if the Holy Bible in the vulgar 
tongue be suffered to be read everywhere without dis- 
tinction, more evil than good arises, let the judgment 
of the Bishop or inquisitor be* abided by in this respect; 
so that, after consulting with the parish Priest or the 
confessor, they may grant permission to read transla- 
tions of the Scriptures made by Catholic writers, to 
those whom they understand to be able to receive no 
harm, but an increase of faith and piety, from such 
readings; which faculty let them have in writing. But 
whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles, or have 
them in possession without such faculty, shall not be 



JUEISDICTION OF THE POPE. 



113 



capable of receiviag absolution of their sins, unless they 
have given up the Bible to the ordinary." 

But conclusive as are the foregoing arguments 
against the claims of the Papacy, the strongest yet 
remains to be presented. It is based upon the scandal- 
ous lives which many of the Popes have lived. For how 
can they make good the pretension that since theAscen- 
^ sion they stand in the same relation to the Church uni- 
versal as our Lord did to His Disciples, unless it be 
shown that, like Him, they have also been a perfect 
example to the world as well as its light and king? As 
the claims of Christ could not stand for a moment but 
for His absolute holiness, so the assertion that the 
Popes are His infallible and all powerful representatives 
must fall to the ground if any of them can be con- 
victed of sin. Many of the Bishops of Kome have been 
in all respects ornaments to the Church and have rend- 
ered her inestimable service. I would rather dwell on 
the virtues of these than upon the heresies, frailties, 
and immoralities of the unworthy occupants of that 
illustrious Apostolic See. But as Professor Salmon says : 
"When Rome is made the hinge on which the whole 
Church turns — the rock on which it rests — then it is 
necessary to give proof that Kome has not the strength 
to bear the weight which it is proposed to lay upon it." 
The evidence by which her weakness will be made 
manifest shall, for obvious reasons, be quoted solely 
from the pages of her own sons. I shall be obliged to 
suppress some of the passages which have been collected 
from their books, because they contain accounts of 
crimes too revolting for mention in a work that is in- 
tended for general reading, but not one word will be 
added from Protestant authors. 



114 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



The learned Cardinal Baronius, speaking of the 
Papal Court in the tenth century, says: "What was 
then the semblance of the Holy Koman Church? As 
foul as it could be, when harlots, superior in power as 
in profligacy, governed at Eonie, at whose will Sees 
were transferred, Bishops were appointed, and, what is 
horrible and awful to say, their paramours were in- 
truded into the See of Peter ; false Pontiffs who are set 
down in the catalogue of Koman Pontiffs merely for 
chronological purposes; for who can venture to say 
that persons thus basely intruded by such courtesans 
were legitimate Roman Pontiffs? No mention can be 
found of election or subsequent consent on the part of 
the Clergy ; all the canons were buried in oblivion, the 
decrees of the Popes stifled, the ancient traditions put 
under ban, and the old customs, sacred rites, and former 
usages in the election of the chief Pontiff' were quite 
abolished. Mad lust, relying on worldly power, thus 
claimed all as its own, goaded on by the sting of am- 
bition. Christ was then in a deep sleep in a ship, when 
the ship itself was covered by the waves and these great 
tempests were blowing. And what seemed worse, there 
were no Disciples to wake Him with their cries as He 
slept, for all were snoring. You can imagine as you 
please what sort of Presbyters and Deacons were chosen 
as Cardinals by these monsters." 

Genebrardus, Archbishop of Aix, speaking of the du- 
ration of the Papal profligacy which Baronius thus 
describes, says: "This age has been unfortunate, in so 
far that during nearly a hundred and fifty years, about 
fifty Popes have fallen away from the virtues of their 
predecessors, being apostates, or apostatical, rather 
than Apostolical." 

Very sad is the picture drawn in the speeches at the 
Roman Catholic Councils of the 16th century, when a 



JUEISDICTION OF THE POPE. 



115 



powerful but unsuccessful effort at reformation was 
attempted. The speakers made avowals and charges so 
outspoken and of such overwhelming force that they 
cannot but amaze us. Their descriptions reproduce in 
various forms the same idea: " We Cardinals, Italian 
Bishops, and officials of the Curia, are a tribe of worth- 
less men who have neglected our duties; we have let 
numberless souls perish through our neglect, we dis- 
grace our Episcopal office, we are not shepherds but 
wolves, we are the authors of the corruption prevalent 
throughout the whole Church, and are in a special 
sense responsible for the decay of rehgion in Italy." Car- 
dinal Antonio Pucci said publicly, before the assembly 
of A. D. 1516: "Eome, and the Koman Prelates and 
Bishops daily sent forth from Kome, are the joint causes 
of the manifold errors and corruptions in the Church; 
unless we recover our good fame, which is almost wholly 
lost, it is all up with us." 

"Janus" tells us that: ''The means used by the 
Popes to secure obedience, and break the force of oppo- 
sition among people, princes, or Clergy, were always 
violent. The interdict which suddenly robbed millions, 
the whole population of a country — often for trifling 
causes which they had nothing to do with themselves — 
of Divine Worship and Sacraments, was no longer suffi- 
cient. The Popes declared families, cities, and states 
outlawed, and gave them up to plunder and slavery; 
as, for instance, Clement V. did with Venice; or excom- 
municated them, like Gregory XL, to the seventh gener- 
ation; or they had whole cities destroyed from the face 
of the earth, and the inhabitants transported — the fate 
that Boniface VIII. determined on for Palestrina." 

Macchiavelli says : " The Italians are indebted to the 
Roman Church and its Priests for our having lost all 
religion and devotion through their bad examples, and 



116 



OUR CONTROVEESY AVITH ROMANISTS. 



having become an unbelieving and evil people. The 
nearer a people dwells to a Roman Court the less religion 
it ha«. Were that eouvt set down among the Swiss, 
who still remain more pious, they too would soon be 
corrupted by its vices," Nor was a more favorable 
judgment given by Macchiavelh's fellow-citizen, Guic- 
ciardini, who for many years served the Medicean 
Popes in high offices, administering their provinces and 
commanding their army; he observes, on Macchiavelh's 
w^ords, that "whatever evil may be said of the Roman 
Court must fall short of its deserts." 

The corruption of the Hierarchy is witnessed to in 
Rome itself by that triumph of Michael Angelo's genius, 
the '' Last Judgment," which was painted for the Altar 
of the Sistine Chapel, in a. d. 1541. This magnificent 
work, according to all accounts, is a thrilling prophetic 
parable, w^hich the Papal Court, in its stupid debauch- 
ery, was incapable of comprehending. It portrays to 
the eyes, in awful menace, the final reckoning. By 
including some of them among the damned, the saintly 
artist, w^ho must have been scandahzed at what he con- 
stantly beheld of the abomination of desolation in 
the temple, wrote "Tekel," in vivid and unmistakable 
characters, on the w^alls of the Popes and Cardinals. 
Of course, those who saw their own portraits in this 
terrible caricature, winced a little, "but they were too 
torpid to comprehend the length and breadth of such 
a prophecy. A day of retribution was close at hand. 
God, in the great Reformation, w^as arising to shake 
terribly the earth." 

Roman writers have put as good a face as possible 
upon this unfortunate showing. Of those who have 
exercised their ingenuity to this end, Baronius has 
succeeded as well as any. He contends that inasmuch 
as the Church and Roman Hierarchy were not utterly 



JUEISDICTIOX OF THE POPE. 



117 



ruined by the sins of the Popes, their Divine origin and 
indestructible character are manifest. ''If," the ingen- 
ious Cardinal asks, ''the Papal chair was filled by a 
succession of monstrous men, most base in life, most 
abandoned in morals, and in every way most foul, if it 
had a set of chiefs whose sins would have brought down 
judgments and utter ruin on any other government, 
must we not infer, from the fact of the Papacy's having 
survived such a state of things, that it enjoys the spe- 
cial favor or blessing of Heaven? " But Baronius was 
not the first to resort to this paradoxical makeshift ; in 
fact, he only restated and lent the weight of his repu- 
tation to an explanation which had long exercised a 
great influence over the iUiterate masses, but which, in 
his time, was fast losing its influence with the educated 
and thoughtful. 

Boccaccio, an Italian writer of the fourteenth 
century, should have been canonized by the Roman 
Church for the support which her corrupt Bishops long 
derived from his account of "Abraham's Conversion to 
Christianity." If it were not for the age and the con- 
text in which the narrative appears, it would seem in- 
credible that a story which cannot now be read or heard 
without laughter, should ever have been regarded as 
a satisfactory illustration of the way in which the 
worst Popes, scarcely less than the best, contributed 
to the Glory of God in the upbuilding of His Church. 
As given in the "Decameron," it is briefly this: 
Abraham was a Parisian Jew, who, being pressed to 
embrace Christianity, declared his intention of visiting 
Rome, in order to determine by personal investigation 
w^hether the morals of Christ's Yicar and of the Cardi- 
nals and Clergy proved the superiority of their Creed 
over his own. His Christian friend, intensely desiring 
his conversion, was horrified, knowing too well that the 



118 



OUR CONTROVEESY WITH R0:MANISTS. 



spectacle of sensuality, avarice, and simony which 
tainted all at Eome, from the least to the greatest, was 
better calculated to make a Christian turn Jew than to 
induce a Jew to become a Christian. But Abraham 
could not be dissuaded from going. However, it turned 
out better than there was reason to fear, for upon his 
return he, after all, presented himself for Baptism, de- 
claring himself convinced of the Divinity of a religion 
which survived, notwithstanding that its chief ministers 
were doing their very best to destroy it. ''The popu- 
larity of this tale in pre-Reformation times, shows that, 
if the Bishop of Rome was then believed to be a guide 
to truth, he was not imagined to be an example of 
moral purity." 

A brilliant objector against the doctrine of infallibil- 
ity, after an almost brutal exposure of the monstrous 
crimes of the Popes, in which special mention is made of 
the infamous Alexander XI. and John XXII., sums up 
his argument thus: "If you declare the infallibility of 
the present Bishop of Rome, you will be held bound to 
prove the infallibility of all his predecessors, without a 
single exception. But can you do this, with history 
lying open and showing as clear as sunshine that the 
Popes have erred in their teaching? Can you do it, and 
maintain that Popes who were guilty of avarice, of in- 
cest, of murder, of simony, were nevertheless Vicars of 
Jesus Christ? Oh, venerable brethren, to maintain this 
monstrous thing would be to betray Christ worse than 
Judas did. It would be flinging mud in His face! Be- 
lieve me, venerable brethren, you cannot make history 
over again. There it stands, and there it will stand 
forever, to protest mightily agaiost the dogma of 
Papal infallibility. You may proclaim it unanimously, 
but you will have to do without one vote, and that is 
mine." 



m. 



AXGLICAX OBDERS. 

BESIDES the consecration of oneself to the Chris- 
tian njinistrv and the spiritnal and intellectual 
preparation necessary for this high calling, t^o 
things always have been required in every branch of the 
Catholic Church, namely, Apostohc and Canonical 
Ordination to the office of Deacon, Priest or Bishop, 
and a lawful appointioent to a particular field of labor. 
Upon the first of these depends thevahdity of Sacramen- 
tal ministrations, and on the second the exclusiTe 
authority and submission which are indispensable to 
efliciency and harmony. So far, there is no difference 
of opinion between Eomanists and Anglicans. Our con- 
troversy is concerning the question, w hether or not we 
have the regular Orders and commission. 

Romanists represent that pre-Reformation Bishops 
in England derived whatever authority they had from 
the Pope, and that, now that he has withdrawn that 
authority, they are none the better for this connection 
with the pawst. Anglicans reply that the Church of Eng- 
land was, in its origin, indep)endent of Rome and con- 
tinued so for hundreds of years. This being the case, 
Canon Till., of the General Council of Ephesus, a. d. 
431, makes the interference of the Pope in the Ecclesias- 
tical affairs of England unlawful, and annuls his bull of 
excommunication. Tliis canon restrains all Bishops, 
not excepting the Popes, from the exercise of Episcopal 
functions and jurisdiction in any Diocese or Pro^'ince 
except their own. Thus, when the Pope excommunicated 

* Lecture lA'. 

(119) 



120 



OUR COXTEOYEESY AVITH EOMANISTS. 



the Church of England in the reigns of Henry Till, 
and Elizabeth, he did no more than cut himself and 
his Diocese off from a pure branch of the Catholic and 
Apostolic Church of Christ. His excommunication 
of the whole Eastern Church some four centuries before 
had the same effect. St. Firmilian, Metropolitan of 
Ca3sarea in Cappadocia, was right when he said to 
Stephen, Patriarch of Rome, "Whilst you think it in 
Your power to excommunicate all the world, you haye 
onl}^ separated yourself from the communion of the 
whole Catholic Church." 

During the fourth and fifth centuries, the Church was 
harassed by the rise of man}^ graye heresies. In this 
period of excited disputation the weapon of excommuni- 
cation was brandished recklessly, not only by the Popes 
of Rome, but also by the other heads of Patriarchates, 
and eyen hj comparativel}" obscure Diocesans. AVhen 
there was danger of serious corruption, the best way to 
guard against it known to the Ecclesiastical authorities 
of those days, was to cut the offender off from fraternal 
intercourse with the endangered Diocese and to brand him 
with the censure called anathema. Butw^hen one Bishop 
excommunicated another, it neyer occurred to the ex- 
communicate that he and the Christians of his Diocese 
w^ere cast out of the Catholic Church. It required the 
condemnation of a General Council for this. With but 
comparatiyely few^ exceptions, the cause for the excom- 
munication w^as too trifling to commend it to the 
attention of such a body. The dispute was therefore 
usually settled, and the parties directly concerned recon- 
ciled, by arbitration, or by time, that great healer of 
petty differences and alienations. 

It seldom happened that the aggressor in an excom- 
munication procedure enjoyed the undiyided support 
of .neighboring Dioceses. As in the case of nearly all 



AXGLICAX ORDEES. 



121 



disputes about little matters, there were two sides to the 
question. Often the Bishops far and near were pretty 
evenly divided. This was frequently so when the 
Bishop of Eome was the excommunicator. In fact, 
there is more than one instance on record in which he 
was so clearly in the wrong as to be obliged, under the 
pressure of public sentiment, to annul his bull or at 
least to allow it to become inoperative. This conclu- 
sively shows that excommunication by the Bishop of 
Rome did not, in the early days of Christianity, sepa- 
rate from the Church ; and if it did not do so then, there 
is no reason for believing that' it did in the sixteenth 
century or that it does now. It must be remembered 
too, in this connection, that the argument by which 
Romanists would unchurch Anglicans proves too much. 
We have seen that the power of loosing and binding 
was given to all the Apostles and their successors, not 
to St. Peter and his alone, and that in the primitive 
Church it was exercised by all Bishops. If, therefore, 
our Orders are to be regarded as invalidated b}^ the fact 
that the Pope has separated himself from communion 
with us, their own must be similarly affected by the re- 
fusal of the great Greek Church to commune with Rome. 

Not only were our Orders thus canonically protected 
from any invalidating effect of the Pope's excommuni- 
cation, but, at the time when his final bull was promul- 
gated, it happened, either by chance or, as is more prob- 
able, by a Providential election, that there was not one 
of all the English Bishops who owed either his appoint- 
ment or his Consecration to the Pope of Rome. None 
had promised obedience to him, nor derived even a 
show of authority from him. " They had all been or- 
dained under Edward VI., before Mary's reign, or under 
Elizabeth, after Mary's reign was over." It is sheer 
absurdity to pretend that the Bishop of Rome could 



122 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



abrogate what was iti no way derived from him. If it 
were not for the Ephesian Canon, it might be conceiv- 
able that Rome could withdraw, by canonical deposition, 
the Apostolic strand which we have through the Italian 
succession, but, even then, our Bishops could trace their 
spiritual descent through two and probably three re- 
maining continuous Apostolic OiUcestral lines, namely, 
the English, the Irish, and the Saxon. No allegation of 
loss of continuity has ever been, with any show of reason, 
urged against the last two of these. And unless Arch- 
bishop Theodore disregarded the precautionary Canon 
which requires that every Bishop shall have at least 
three Consecrators, the third has been continued also 
through Chad, who was elevated to the Bishopric of 
York in A. d. 664. 

But if our Orders were wholly derived through the 
Eoman succession, it would not follow that we must be 
in subjection to the Pope in order to retain a valid 
Apostolic ministry. For as has been well said: "The 
Consecration of a Bishop or Archbishop by the Pope, 
does not invest him with authorit}^ or jurisdiction over 
the said Bishop or Archbishop, or over their Diocese or 
Province. Otherwise Virgilius, Bishop of Aries, in 
France, by consecrating Augustine, would have acquired 
jurisdiction over him, and over Canterbury likewise; 
and also Godwin of Lyons by consecrating Brightvvald, 
Theodore's successor, would have done the same. Several 
Priests in Roman Orders are, it is stated, at this mo- 
ment incumbents in the English Church, having con- 
formed thereto. Supposing this to be the fact, that 
would not make their parishes Roman parishes ; and, in 
like manner, a number of Bishops, with an Archbishop 
at the head of them, would not, because they had re- 
ceived their Consecra,tion from Roman Bishops, turn 
their Dioceses or Provinces into Roman ones." To argue 



AXGLICAX ORDERS. 



123 



otherwise would prove too much for Romanists. Many 
of the Popes were translated to Rome from the French 
and other National Churches— one from England. Are 
we, therefore, to conclude that the foreign Church which 
happens to have a son in the reputed chair of St. Peter 
is, for the time being, entitled to rule over the Roman 
Church? If so the " Holy See " must always be subject 
to some jurisdiction other than that of its occupant, 
for the Pope never consecrates or appoints his successor. 

However, the Roman strand has never been drawn 
from the Anglican succession by any Papal deposition 
of our Bishops. Though the Pope withdrew from their 
Communion, neither he nor anybody else ever deposed 
them. Certainly, without canonical deposition and deg- 
radation there can be no such thing as nullification of 
Holy Orders. The learned Roman Cathohc, Courayer, 
in his unanswerable work in defense of English Ordina- 
tions, points out that "when the Donatists made a 
schism, the succession of the Episcopate w^as acknowl- 
edged in them. Yet they were guilty of the same in- 
trusion with which the English are reproached. Thej 
had erected Altar against Altar; they had put them- 
selves in the place of the Catholic Bishops; their title 
was altogether faulty, and they were equally excom- 
municated and irregular. Nevertheless, the Catholic 
Bishops acknowledged in them the validity of the 
Priesthood, and, far from disputing their succession, 
offered to yield them their place, provided they would, 
by their reunion, terminate the schism. We cannot re- 
fuse the English a succession of the same nature, sup- 
posing once the validity of their Ordination, which the 
authors of the objection are willing to admit." 

Besides, when Romanists insist upon the necessity of 
submission to the " Holy See," we can quote the words 
of a Pope to one of our Archbishops of Canterbury : ' ' By 



124 



OUK COXTEOYEEST WITH EOMAXISTS. 



the authority,'' said he, ^'of the blessed Peter, Prince 
of the Apostles, to whom power was given by our 
Lord to bind and to loose in heaven and on earth, 
we, however unworthy, holding the place of that same 
blessed Peter, who bears the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven, grant to you, Theodore, and your successors, 
all that from old time was allowed, forever to remain 
unimpaired in that your Metropolitan See in the city 
of Canterbury.'- This grant was made more than a 
thousand years ago. Dr. John Henry Hopkins" witty 
remarks upon it are to the point: "Our modern con- 
troversialists on behalf of the Pope would fain make 
us believe that this, the Pope's promise and gift ' for- 
ever to remain unimpaired,' is now utterh^ null and 
void. But we think better of ' His Holiness ' than that ! 
It was hardly worth while, indeed, to lug in St. Peter as 
having anything to do with conveying to Theodore 
'air that the Archbishops of Canterbury had already 
been enjoying from -'old time.' It sounded generous, 
and was certainly quite safe, however, to give to the 
Archbishop what belonged to his See anyhow. It was a 
way the Popes had. But if there was anything at all 
in the gift prospectively, we would only call attention to 
the fact, that, as the Pope gave the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury all these things, in the name of Blessed Peter, and 
to the Archbishop's 'successors,' ' forever to remain un- 
impaired,' of course, if there is any truth or reality in a 
gift from a Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury must 
retain them all to this day. To deny it, and maintain 
that they are all gone, is to be guilty of flat blasphemy 
against the Pope! " 

Eomanists also try to discredit the mission of the 
Clergy of our Mother Church of England, by disparag- 



AXGLICAX ORDERS. 



125 



ing her connection with the state, and the part taken 
bv the crown and civil authorities in the fllKng of Ya- 
cant Bishoprics and benefices. They never tire of repre- 
senting that Henrv YIII., after breaking \^ith Clement 
YII., styled himself Supreme Head of the Church, and 
usurped the Ecclesiastical government which, up to 
that time, by Divine appointment, had devolved upon 
the Pope. This notion is entirely erroneous. "AYe 
must not be misled," says the learned Canon Dixon, 
"by the term 'supremacy,' which first began to be 
applied to the Papal power in England after that 
power had been taken away. . It was not applied to 
the Papal power so long as it existed, while, on the 
other hand, it was always applied to the kingly power, 
and properly expressed the nature of the same. The 
sovereign was at all times the head of the realm, both 
of the spirituality and the temporality, whether or not 
he had borne a title to express his spiritual suprem- 
acy. In the laws of Edward the Confessor, a. d. 
1004-66, he was termed theYicar of Christ, a title which 
seems as expressive as that which was taken by Henry 
YIII." But in speaking of the king's title, candor should 
induce Romanists not to stop short of the important 
qualifying clause, " as far as is permitted by the law cf 
Christ.'' Perhaps it would be a little too much to ex- 
pect them to add Henry's official explanation, in which 
he disclaimed any intention of usurping the Spiritual 
government of the Church. "It were absurd," he says, 
"for us to be called Head of the Church, representing 
the mystical Body of Christ." He restored the spiritual 
headship to the Bishops, convocations and Ecclesias- 
tical courts, to which it canonically and constitution- 
ally belonged. There is one more fact bearing upon 
this subject to which Romanists of course never refer. 
The title which is such a stumbling-block to them was 



126 



OUR COXTEOVEESY WITH ROMANISTS. 



dropped by Queen Mary, since whose time it has not 
been assumed by any English sovereign. 

Those who have not read both sides might suppose, 
from the representations of Ultramontanists, that the 
Bishops of England and her colonies derive their mis- 
sion from the King or Queen. In reality jurisdiction is 
given at Ordination. The crown, as represented by the 
Prime Minister, for the purpose of safeguarding the in- 
terests of the state, of which the Church is such a pow- 
erful factor, simply reserves the right of nomination. 
The Bishop elect is then consecrated by order of the 
Archbishop of the Province. Thus the English Bishops, 
like those of any other branch of the Church Catholic, 
owe their Mission to Ecclesiastical Consecration, or, in 
case of Missionary Jurisdictions, to appointment, by the 
Metropolitan. "In sum," says Bishop Bramhall, "we 
hold our benefices from the King, but our offices from 
Christ; the King doth nominate us, but Bishops do 
ordain us." 

The objection to the mission of the Anglican Episco- 
pate and ministry upon the ground of Erastianism 
will not stand, therefore, even so far as England is con- 
cerned, and, as for the American Episcopal Church, it 
has no foundation whatever. But even if it were well 
taken, Romanists could not safeh^ make much of it, as 
w^e would not be slow in pointing out that the Popes 
were foi several centuries created by the Emperors. 
Much of their jurisdiction was derived from the same 
source. For example, whatever authority they exer- 
cised in France was due to a statute of the Emperor 
Valentinian III., which runs as follows : " We decree, by 
a perpetual sanction, that nothing shall be attempted 
against ancient custom by the Bishops of Gaul, or other 
Provinces, without the authority of the venerable Pope 
of the Eternal City ; but whatever the authority of the 



AXGLICAX ORDERS. 



127 



Apostolic Chair ordains, shall be la^Y to them ; so that 
if any Bishop when summoned shall omit to come to 
the court of the Koman Bishop, he shall be compelled 
to come by the governor of the province." "Thus," 
observes Professor Hussey, "the Pope's supremacy was 
now estabhshed, not by the law of Christ, nor by a 
canon of the Church over the Church, but by the 
Roman law over the dominions of the Roman em- 
peror of the West." 

Roman Catholic controversialists have tried to dis- 
credit the English Succession by affirming that the reg- 
ister at Lambeth Palace, recording the Consecration of 
Archbishop Parker, was a forgery, and that all which 
really took place was a mock Consecration at the Nag's 
Head tavern in London. It was said that Kitchin and 
Scory, with Parker and other Bishops elect, met there, 
that Kitchin, on account of a prohibition by Bonner, re- 
fused to consecrate them, that Scory, therefore, order- 
ing them to kneel down, placed the Bible on the head 
of each and told them to rise up Bishops. But this rep- 
resentation was at once thoroughly exploded by 
Anghcan writers, and has long been repudiated by all 
respectable Roman authors. One of these, Lingard, 
says : " Of this tale, concerning which so much has been 
written, I can find no trace in any author or document 
of the reign of Ehzabeth. I should not hesitate to pro- 
nounce in favor of the Consecration, even if all direct 
and positive evidence respecting it had perished. But 
there exists such evidence in abundance." And an 
erudite Roman CathoUc Layman writes : " I am unable 
to understand those who maintain that the Protestant 
Bishops went through a mock consecration at a tavern 
in Cheapside. If there is one historical fact for which 



128 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



the existing evidence should render it undisputed, it is 
the fact of the Consecration of Dr. Parker at Lambeth, 
on December 17, 1559." 

It is further urged that Barlow, the chief Consecrator 
of Parker, was not a Bishop. To this we reply that, 
whether he was or not, Dr. Parker was validly conse- 
crated, because three other Bishops, whose Ordination 
is unquestioned, laid hands upon him and repeated the 
words of Consecration. But there is no reason, except 
the fact that the records have been lost, for the asser- 
tion that i)r. Barlow had not been duly invested wdth 
the Episcopal character. If Romanists foolishly insist 
that this not unusual circumstance must be regarded 
as conclusive, we will meet them on their own ground 
by insisting that all the Popes whose records of Conse- 
cration are not extant, and there are many such, were 
merely Laymen. Ordination papers and records are by 
no means the only sufficient evidence of canonical 
ministerial office. In the case of Dr. Barlow there is 
enough besides to convince Dr. Lingard, one of the 
greatest of Ptoman Cathohc historians, and many other 
scholars of the first rank, that he was regularly 
consecrated. "When," says Lingard, "we find Barlow 
during ten years, the remainder of Henry's reign, con- 
stantly associated, as a brother, with the other con- 
secrated Bishops, discharging with them all the duties, 
both spiritual and secular, of a consecrated Bishop, 
summoned equally with them to Parliament and con- 
vocation, taking his seat among them, according to 
seniority, and voting on all subjects as one of them, it 
seems most unreasonable to suppose, without direct 
proof, that he had never received that sacred rite, 
without which, according to the law^s of both Church 
and state, he could not have become a member of the 
Episcopal body." 



AXGLICAX 0EDEE5, 



129 



Finallv, it is objected that the Ordinal of the first 
Prayer Book of EdrardTI.. used at the Consecration of 
Archbishop Parker and others T\-bo continued the 
Anghcan Succession, was defective in that the word 
" Bishop did not occur in the lormukt appointed to be 
said at the laying on of hands, and that there was 
nothing in any part of the Service to make the inten- 
tion of consecrating to the Episcopate sufficiently clear. 
The answer to which is that the only Sacraments tied 
to express forms of words and particular matter, by 
our Lord's appointment, are Baptism and the Euchar- 
ist. Courayer says that •'■ according to a principle now 
almost universally received in the schools, and gen- 
erally by all learned di^dneSj imposition of hands 
and prayer are the only essentials of Ordination, and 
the Ritual of Edward has preserved both. Therefore, 
the Bishops ordained by this new Eittial are truly 
Bishops, and this new Ordination would suffice alone to 
assure the succession of the Episcopate. " The omission 
of the word Bishop in the formula repeated at the lay- 
ing on of hands does not make the purpose of the 
Ordination indefinite, when all the circumstances render 
the intention unmistakable. The following rubrical 
direction, which occurs in the vService used at Dr. Park- 
er's Consecration, puts the intention of those who took 
part beyond dispute: •'After the Gospel and Credo 
ended, first the elected Bishop shall be presented by two 
Bishops unto the Archbishop of that Province, or to 
some other Bishop appointed by his commission: the 
Bishops that present him sa,"\dng: Most Reverend 
Eather in God. we present unto you this godly and 
well-learned man. to be consecrated Bishop.'' Eurther 
on we find this rubric: ••Then the Archbishop and 
Bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head 
of the elected Bishop, the Archbishop saving: Take the 

C.A.— 9 



130 



OUR CONTEOVERSY WITH EOMAJflSTS. 



Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace 
of God which is in thee b}^ imposition of hands; for 
God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, 
and love, and of soberness." 

It should be observed in this connection that the 
Edwardian Ordinal was strictly in accord with the 
usage which universally prevailed until the twelfth cen- 
tury, and still prevails in the Greek Communion. If, 
therefore, Archbishop Parker's Consecration is invali- 
dated on account of the form of words used, there was 
no vahd Ordination of a Bishop until after t^^'elve hun- 
dred years, when the Latins added certain novelties of 
ceremony to the ancient usage. But as the Orders of 
the Greeks are acknowledged, notwithstanding their 
persistent adherence to the old form, it is difficult to 
see how those of the English can be objected to on this 
ground. The difficulty is increased by the fact that 
Pope Pius TV., by his envoy, offered, in the reign of 
Elizabeth, to confirm the whole English Prayer Book, 
of course including the Ordinal, provided the Church of 
England would be reconciled to the Pope, and acknowl- 
edge his supremac3^ The Koman Catholic, Father 
Couraj^er, calls attention to the report of Lord Camden 
to this effect, and also to Sir Edward Coke's independ- 
ent and solemn statement of the same. 

There is, then, not the slightest ground for doubt 
that the Apostolic Succession has been duly transmitted 
through Archbishop Parker and the Elizabethan Bish- 
ops. But even if the transmission of valid orders 
through Archbishop Parker were not, in so far as mat- 
ters of history are capable of mathematical certainty, a 
demonstrable fact, we have Archbishop Laud to fall 
back upon. That he received Episcopal Consecration 
by those whose Orders were valid, has not been and 
never will be questioned. Through him, quite indepen- 



ELECTRIC 
BATTERY 




Diagram showing that the Anglican Communion through Archbishop Laud 
has the Apostolic Succession independently of Archbishop Parker. Each ring 
represents a Bishop and his interlaced succession from the Apostles. The red 
illustrates the succession of Archbishop Parker. It will be seen that without 
it the present Bishops of the Anglican Communion could, nevertheless, trace 
their succession from the Apostles through Laud, via the Bishops of Jerusalem, 
Wales, Ireland, and Italy; for it is evident that if the diagram were actually 
constructed from wire rings, that an electric battery, placed at the ring repre- 
senting the Apostles, would send a current around that including the present 
Episcopate of the Anglican Communion ; and this it would do through the iron 
rings representing the Jerusalem and other successions, even if the copper 
rings representing the Parker succession were removed. 



< 

l-H 
l-H 

3 

< 



Eh W 



CO P^ 

i 

p^ 
P5 

Ph 

P^ 
P 

o 
o 

H 

P^ 

o 



HOPS 
IVED 
lON- 


were 
onse- 
ud, 




OD ^ <i 










CHES 




(U fl 


^; 


^ w W w 

^ H ^ 


X 

pers 
crat 
incl 


P a. 






A 


^ 





CO 
r-l 

<i G « 



MS 



§1 

o p 
MS 



pq^; « S 
[a ^ H ^ m S 

■^^ W ^ H Z 

P3 ffi P3 P3 a: ^ 



5<i 



1^ PJ 04 

OPQCq 



o 

Ph* . 



«o ;z w 

Mpq c,' a<' 



19 

. , ^ o g 

qJ ^ o q 2 

PiK . . . . 

P3 X Ph M 



> > 6 



« 2 



§ g o 



2 o :^ o g 



^ oi o 



- S S S a> 
ago 

J g cS ^ S, 

i-i a PhO o 
^ 9 o ^ g 

goo Oj3 



o- 



^ c i 

^ a'-g" o ^ 

r; o 5; « o 
Segals a 5 

W 3 C ^ S 

o _ a ^!<-i 



CtS,^ ~ ^ ?^ 

a^^5-:g 
2 °^ 

g^g 2 CP 

^1-2 a''ca 

O) o! q; T3 1) ^ 

-a '2 s cSrQ a 

H o a P +^ o 
«.2fi S ft 



ANGLICA^T OEDEES. 



131 



dently of Archbishop Parker, we have the English, the 
Irish and the Italian succession and probably also that 
of the Saxon. This is clearly shown from the record of 
Laud's Consecration as Bishop of St. David's, which 
took place in the reign of King Charles I. He had six 
Consecrators, of whom Montaigne, Bishop of London, 
and Felton, Bishop of Ely, had been consecrated on the 
14th of December, 1617, by George Abbot, Archbishop 
of Canterbury, assisted by Mark Antonio de Dominis, 
an ex-Roman Catholic Archbishop. Laud therefore 
received, through Montaigne and Felton, both the 
English and ItaUan successions. He had also the Irish 
through three other of his Consecrators, John Thorn- 
borough, Bishop of Worcester, translated from Limer- 
ick; John Howson, Bishop of Oxford, who had the 
Irish succession through the Archbishop of Armagh; 
Theophilus Field, Bishop of Llandaff, one of whose Con- 
secrators was the Bishop of Derry. Nine Bishops 
survived the rebelhon, eight of whom — Juxon, Duppa, 
Wren, Skinner, King, Warner, Roberts, and Frewen — 
had the succession from Laud ; and from these all the 
Bishops of the Anglican Communion derive their 
Orders. They, therefore, have their spiritual descent 
from Laud, and derive through him, independently of 
Archbishop Parker, the three successions, English, Irish 
and Italian. 

An able writer calls attention to the interesting fact 
that Roman controversialists never attack the validity 
of the Orders of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ire- 
land. " In fact, there can be no question about them, 
as they are derived from Connor's Consecration of Arch- 
bishop Curwin in Queen Mary's reign. This has a vital 
bearing upon the question of English Orders since Irish 
Bishops of this succession took part in the Consecra- 
tion of Archbishop Laud. Thus, even if it could be for 



132 



OUR COIS^TROYEESY WITH ^KOMAXISTS. 



a moment admitted that there was any doubt of the 
Yalidity of Parker's Consecration, it would haye to be al- 
lowed that the defect was at least in a measure rectified. 
A Roman Catholic Archbishop, who had connected him- 
self with the Anglican Church and receiyed an appoint- 
ment to an English benefice, also took part in Laud's 
Consecration. Absolutely certain as the Consecration 
of Archbishop Parker is, English orders do not stand 
or fall even with that." 

lY. 

LEO XlirS DECREE OF INVALIDITY. 

Not a few in both the Eoman and Anglican Com- 
munions haye been looking forward with considerable 
anxiety to the result of- the Pope's inyestigations con- 
cerning the yalidity of Anglican Orders, and his recently 
published adverse decision will of course settle the ques- 
tion with the rank and file of Romanists. This is the 
decree: "We pronounce and declare that Ordinations 
carried out according to the Anglican Rite have been 
and are absolutely null and utterly yoid." But there is 
nothing in the long and intricate arguments of the 
Bull that will change the mind of a single scholar of 
either Communion. It throws no new hght upon the sub- 
ject, and does not raise a single objection that has not 
been answered a thousand times. Perhaps some of my 
readers will be glad to know that the Pope's argu- 
ments are all anticipated and very effectually answered 
in a little book, entitled, "What Objections Have Been 
Made to English Orders," which is published by the 
Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge. In 
the future Anglican Orders will of course not haye so 
many outspoken champions among Roman VTiters, but 

" A man convinced against his will, 
Is of the same opinion still." 



ANGLICAN OEDERS. 



133 



There are many learned Eoman Catholics who will 
continue in one way or another to make felt their re- 
sentment at the scandalous disregard of history and 
canon law, which the Jesuits have manifested all along 
in their propaganda against the ministry of the Apos- 
tohc Church of the Enghsh race. 

It may turn out that the Black Pope" and his 
followers, by practically forcing Leo XIII. to declare 
against Anglican Orders, have done our Communion a 
great service. There have been a considerable number 
of both Clergymen and Laymen whose devotion to the 
idea of the restoration of intercommunion with the 
Eoman Church has been so great as, in a few instances, 
to compromise their loyalty to the great Historic 
Church of their race. These, as their leader. Lord Hal- 
ifax, admits, will now be forced to perceive, what their 
forbearing Bishops and brethren have seen all along, 
that there can be no such thing as the unity upon which 
they had set their hearts without a complete and un- 
conditional surrender on our part of the liberty which, 
according to the Ecclesiastical Canons, belongs to every 
National Church. 

The Pope's decree will be welcomed cordially by many 
Episcopalians, not only because it will turn the faces of 
their infatuated brethren away from Eome, but also 
because it gives them possession of all the outposts 
around which the battle of controversy concerning our 
Orders has hitherto raged. Since the pubUcation a few 
months ago of M. Dalbus' work on the validity of An- 
ghcan Orders, Ultramontanists have realized that there 
was nothing for them to do except to extort a decree 
from the "infaUible" Pope and take refuge behind it, for 
it appears from these publications that the controversial 
guns of every other parapet have been silenced by our 
relentless artillery, reinforced by many an effective shot 



134 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



from the enemies' own ranks. Those who are familiar 
with the ground upon which the battle between Angli- 
cans and Romanists has been raging forthree centuries, 
will- be greatly surprised that the Bull contains not a 
word about the " Nag's Head " or Bishop Barlow. This 
gives us a position which our enemies long regarded as 
their Gibraltar. 

M. Dalbus is the pen name of a distinguished French 
Priest and scholar, the Abbe Portal. His work was 
honored with a commendatory letter by the learned Car- 
dinal Bourret, and a favorable criticism by the great 
Abbe Duchesne. I will, in part, quote Abbe Duchesne's 
review of M. Dalbus as condensed in the Literary Digest, 
because comparatively few words will thus suffice to show 
what both have to say. 

Ahh6 Duchesne says: "M. Dalbus begins by estab- 
lishing the claim that Bishops Parker and Barlow, from 
whom the whole of the Anglican Clergy derives its 
Ordinations, were really ordained ; or, at least, that 
there is no ground for contesting their Ordination. On 
the other hand, the Ritual of the Anglican Church is 
substantially similar to the Ritual of the Greek Church, 
and even to that of the Latin Churches down to the 
twelfth century. Conclusion : The Ministers of the An- 
glican Church are just as rightly ordained as Gregory of 
Tours, Hincmar of Rheims, and other Latin Clergy of 
ancient times." 

It is difficult to see how the Pope could be induced to 
take the stand he has in the face of the admissions and 
contentions of many of the most scholarly among his 
own officers. He passes over what they have to say 
with the remark thatthevahdity of Anglican Orders has 
been maintained by "some few Cathohcs, chiefly non- 
English,'' and attributes their mistake to "insufficient 
knowledge" concerning certain documentary evidence 



AXGLICAX ORDERS. 



135 



relating to the decisions of his predecessors. Such con- 
temptuous references to men who might forget more than 
Leo XIII. ever knew and still be better furnished than 
he to pass upon the subject in question, are calculated 
to make the blood boil. 

As the Pope seems to congratulate himself upon the 
alleged fact that the Catholics who admit the vahdity of 
Anglican Orders are chiefly "non-English," we will here 
calf attention to a remarkable letter by an English Ul- 
tramontanist. It is reprinted in full by Dr. Lee in the 
Appendix to his great work on "The Validity of the 
Holy Orders of the Church of England." The following 
is a short extract: "Now, my own conviction has al- 
ways been, as you are aware, that the probability in 
favor of English Orders, as gathered from the direct evi- 
dence amounts to moral certainty, which is the highest 
kind of certainty attainable in such questions. I haA^e, 
therefore, myself, no more doubt of their vahdity than I 
have of the validity of the Orders of the Catholic Church 
or of the Greeks. The Jesuit Missionaries of Ehzabeth's 
reign, and those who have followed in their footsteps 
since, thought it necessary for Catholic interests to strain 
every nerve to disprove the Anghcan Succession. Hence, 
first^he scandalous invention of the Nag's Head Fable. 
When that was too much blown upon for any respectable 
writer to be able to use it, the mare's nest about Bar- 
low's Consecration was thrust to the front, though even 
if his Consecration could have been disproved it would 
have had no real bearing on Parker's, for of the Episco- 
pal Orders of his three other Consecrators there can be 
no doubt. When that broke down, the Doctrine of In- 
tention was attempted to be worked in a way which, 
if it proved anything, would shake the vahdity of 
every Sacrament in Christendom. The whole history 
of the controversy about Anghcan Orders, so far from 



136 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



tending to shake their validity, very strongly con- 
firms it." 

Many of the brightest lights of the Roman Commun- 
ion have held and are holding these views. The Rev. M. 
R. Butler, in his "Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders/' 
has compiled many pages of extracts from the writings 
of more than thirty of the most eminent Roman Catholic 
authors, who admit the validity of our ministry, and in 
some cases even contend for it. Among those who have 
done this are such celebrated names as Dr. Nicholas 
Sanders, Cardinal Archbishop of Odescalchi, Monseig- 
neur De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, and Primate 
of Dalmatia and Croatia; Monseigneur Jacques Benigne 
Bossuet, the renowned Bishop of Meaux; Monseigneur 
Harlay, Archbishop of Paris; St. Alfonso M. Liguori, 
Bishop of Agatha, and founder of the congregation 
of the Most Holy Redeemer, and the celebrated Galilean 
divine, Le Courayer, who wrote a dissertation in support 
of Anglican Orders and afterwards a defense of it, which 
together contain perhaps the most thorough refutation 
of Roman attacks which has ever been made. 

In the verdicts rendered in the case of Dr. Stephen 
Gough, we have the deliberate and semi-official pro- 
nouncement of the Sorbonne Faculty, upon two occa- 
sions, in favor of Anglican Orders. Dr. Gough, before 
entering the Church of Rome, had been one of the Chap- 
lains of Charles I. His ministrations as a Roman Priest 
were in the Diocese of Paris. He insisted that the Or- 
dination which he had received at the hands of an Eng- 
lish Bishop was vahd, and the Archbishop of Paris hold- 
ing the same view, gave him a cure without reordination. 
The most learned Faculty of the celebrated Theological 
Seminary of the Sorbonne was, however, charged with 
the thorough investigation of the whole subject of An. 
glican Orders. After spending several months in research 



AJ^GLICAN OKDEES. 



187 



and conference they pronounced them unquestionably 
valid. But after a time the misgivings of some influen- 
tial Ultramontanists induced the Archbishop to re-com- 
mit the case to a choice number of the great Sorbonne 
Doctors. These, after sifting again all the evidence, 
confirmed the verdict of the preceding committee, and 
framed a report which had the effect of silencing all op- 
position to Dr. Gough. This testimony to the validity 
of Enghsh Orders is exceptionally valuable, because it 
comes from what, during several centuries, was ''the 
most renowned and competent theological school in 
Latin Christendom." 

The "Life of Archbishop Tait" contains an account 
of a very important communication, received by the 
late Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Wordsworth, from some of 
the Bishops who were attending the Vatican Council, 
A. D. 1870, in which it was signified that the opposition 
to the Dogma of Papal Infallibility would be exceedingly 
grateful for the moral support of the Anglican Episco- 
pate. Thus the validity of our Orders was acknowledged 
by the Vatican minority, which, so far as learning is 
concerned, was the flower of the Eoman hierarcby. 

Moreover, by declaring Anglican Orders to be 
totally invalid Leo XIIL reverses the decision of Popes 
Julius IIL, Paul IV., Pius IV. and Urban VIIL, who 
admitted their validity. The evidence of this state- 
ment will be found excellently summarized and well 
supported by quotations from and references to origi- 
nal authorities in the Eev. Mr. Butler's pamphlet re- 
ferred to above. Our space will admit of little more 
than a bare statement of the facts. 

Pope Julius III. addressed a brief to Cardinal Pole m 
the year 1554, desiring him to absolve and reconcile 
the Bishops and Priests made in Edward VI.'s time, 
but not directing him to reordain them. Leo XIII. 



138 



OUR COXTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



tries hard to get rid of this embarrassing fact by 
maintaining that Julius III. at the restoration of the 
usurped Papal power in England on the accession of 
Queen Mary reinstated only the Bishops and Clergy who 
had been ordained by the Eoman Ordinal. But the 
instructions to Cardinal Pole, the Apostolic Legate to 
England, nowhere discriminate against those who had 
received the Edwardian Ordination. In order to make 
it appear to the contrary, the Pope and his advisers 
conveniently lose sight of the fact that in those days it 
was not uncommon for Laymen to nominally hold 
vacant benefices, which were sometimes of considerable 
duration. The Bull, so far as it relates to this subject, 
is a restatement of the argument of Canon Moyes, 
"who, finding a man described in Mary's reign as never 
ordained or ^no minister' calmly puts him down 
among those whose Orders were disallowed because 
conferred by the Edwardian form. Canon Moyes' logic 
is of the most refi-eshing type, since to him 'ordained' 
by the Edwardian form is equivalent to 'not ordained 
at all.' Therefore, also, ' not ordained at all ' is equiva- 
lent to ' ordained by the Edwardian Form.' " 

Though during Mary's reign many of the Edwardian 
Clergy were reconciled to the Pope by his representa- 
tives and satisfactorily reestablished in their benefices, 
there is no instance of the reordination of a single 
Bishop, Priest or Deacon. Bishop Bonner, who was 
high in favor at Rome, on the 14th of July, 1554, 
restored his beloved colleague Scory ; the sole ground 
alleged for the need of such restoration to his Episcopal 
ofl3ce being his marriage; and there is no question 
that Scory was consecrated on the 10th of August, 
1551, with the Revised Ordinal. 

Pope Paul lY., a. d. 1555-59, "established" and 
"confirmed " the action of Julius III. 



A^'GLICAX ORDEES. 139 



Pope Pius IV., A. D. 1559-65, imdted the English 
Prelates, as Bishops, to join in the clehberations of the 
Council of Trent. No Bishops were sent from England 
and the Council expressed amazement that the Enghsh 
Bishops did not even send a letter ''to excuse their 
absence when summoned by ^the Vicegerent of Christ, 
for the settlement of religion." 

Pope Urban VIIL, A. d. 1623-44, t^Yice offered a 
Cardinals hat to the Anglican Primate, Archbishop 
Laud, ^Yithout questioning his Orders. 

An effort to disparage Anglican Orders was made at 
the Coimcil of Trent, not, however, upon the ground 
that thev were defective, but that our Episcopate was 
not in subjection to the Eoman Pontiff. One of the mem- 
bers maintained without contradiction that it was for 
"this one reason and no other" that the Roman 
Church argued against the Bishops of England, "for 
they prove that they have been called, elected, conse- 
crated and given mission." The Popes regard this 
Council as Ecumenical, thus giving it their highest 
sanction. 

The Popes did not question our Orders for many 
years after we had cast off every semblance of alle- 
giance to them. Once and again they signified a 
wiUingness to restore us to Communion without re- 
Baptism, Confirmation or Ordination, providing only 
that we should return to the partial subjugation of the 
Dark Ages. And even at this late date there is not the 
least doubt in the minds of the well instructed that, 
notwithstanding his recent decree, ''His Holiness" 
would repeat the overtures, looking to the wholesale 
restoration made by his predecessors, if there were the 
shghtest chance of their acceptance. 

We submit that in view of the above mentioned 
acknowledgments of his predecessors the dogmatic 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



decree of the present Bishop of Borne tells more against 
the doctrine of infallibility than against Anglican Ordi- 
nations. 

The reasons now given by Leo XIII. for declaring 
Anglican Orders to be invalid are only two: (1) the 
defectiveness of the Edwardian Ordinal, and (2) the 
want of the requisite Intention. 

1. We have already had occasion to refer at some 
length to the first of these objections, but we must in 
this connection quote a few sentences from what Abbe 
Duchesne, the most celebrated liturgiologist of the 
Boman Communion, has to say about it. "The objec- 
tion drawn from the modifications in the Bituals is no 
more admissible than the other. The objection con- 
cerns the Ordination of Priests. The schoolmen laid 
down the rule that, for this form of Orders, the essen- 
tial part of the Bite consists in the delivery of the 
sacred vessels, and in the words which the Bishop pro- 
nounces in giving them. At present, this system is 
abandoned ; it is too clear that, to maintain it, all the 
Greek and Oriental Ordinations, and even those of the 
Latin Church before the eleventh or twelfth century, 
would have to be considered null.". 

To this we must add the clear statement of a scholarlv 
writer in the Enghsh Church Times : " Words which the 
Bomans say are essential to a valid Ordination of a 
Priest were not in the Ordinal of the Western Church till 
the tenth century. Before that period the words of ' a 
commission to Consecrate the Holy Eucharist ' were never 
given. Nor was the form 'for conveying the powder of 
absolution' given till a later time. That is completely 
modern. The actual words, ' Becei ve ye the Holy Ghost : 
Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; 
and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,' are 
first found in a book belonging to the Cathedral of 



ANGLICAN ORDERS. l^l 



Mayence, of the thirteenth century. They are not m the 
early EngUsh manuscripts of Egbert or Dunstan or the 
Winchester Use. They are not in any of the foreign 
Ordinals printed by Martene before the twelfth century. 
They are not in the old Sacramentaries of St. Gregory 
or Gelasius. Such being the case, and as the Eoman 
Bishops and Priests receive their Orders through bt. 
Gregory, according to their present contention that 
the omission of this form of words inyaUdates a pro- 
fessed Ordination, they should, to be consistent, con- 
clude that their own Orders are null and void. We, ot 
the purer branch of the CathoUc Church, beheve our 
Orders to be valid because of our true and unbroken 
succession from the Apostles, and because the Ritual 
used at the time of our Ordination was in accordance 
with the ancient use of the Church before the Mediaeval 

corruptions set in." , . ^. ^ 

2. We may also answer the Pope's objection to 
Ana-hcan Orders, so far as it is based upon lack of In- 
tention, by a quotation from the profoundly learned 
Abbe Duchesne: "Intention must be presumed till the 
contrary is proved. Baptism may be vaUdly conferred 
by a person who knows only that it is a sacred rite by 
which one becomes Christian. In the same way, the Angli- 
can Ordinations have always been performed by persons 
who wished to make Bishops or Priests, and so on. We 
ought not to ask more." 

As one of the critics of the Bull observes: "The Pope 
has not the hardihood to say that if he used the Angli- 
can Ordinal it would not make a Priest or a Bishop, and 
he hardly could considering how many of his predeces- 
sors in primitive times were ordained and consecrated 
by forms equally elastic and indefinite, but he does 
say that the excision of everything in the Ordinal 
referring to sacrifice clearly shows that those who 



142 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



compiled and first used it had no ' intention of making a 
sacrificing Priest.' The question, then, is one of Inten- 
tion, and here the Pope gives away his case, for he ad- 
mits that the Intention of the compilers of the Ordinal, 
as expressed bj themselves, was to return to primitive 
usage; his words are, 'under a protest of returning to 
the primitive form ; ' the Intention of the Ordinal, there- 
fore, was to make Priests of the primitive type,' and if 
the Intention was good, the Pope does not venture to 
deny that the Orders are vahd." 



In times gone by when Denominationalists taunted 
Episcopalians with the fact that the Church of Rome 
virtually denied Anghcan Orders by reordaining Episco- 
pal Clergymen who go over to her, we could retort that 
nevertheless our Ordinations had at various times been 
regarded as valid, and that as a whole they never have 
been officially pronounced invalid. We shall now be 
reminded that so far as Rome is concerned, we stand on 
the same footing with the other Protestant bodies. To 
this we will reply that there is no adequately supported 
statement in the Pope's pronunciamento which goes to 
show that the status of our Bishops, Priests and Dea- 
cons is not historically and Canonically what we have 
hitherto held it to be. Our arguments will still be strong 
enough to compel many of the leading ministers of the 
various Denominations to transfer their allegiance to the 
Catholic Church of the English speaking race. Ever since 
Colonial times, when President Cutler of Yale College, 
with several of the Professors, did this, the procession 
has been continuous, and there is no probability that it 
will be interrupted. On the contrary, the statistics show 
that the number of Denominational ministers who make 
application for Holy Orders in the Church is increasing 



ANGLICAN ORDERS. 



143 



steadily. I know the Bishop of Ohio almost always has 
from one to fom\of such on his hst of candidates, and he 
might have more if he could accept all who offer them- 
selves. When it is remembered that we have nearly three 
hundred Bishops in the Anglican Communion, and that 
most of them have more or less of the same experience, 
the magnitude of the reaction towards the Mother 
Church may be imagined. Many of the ministers who 
have their faces turned homeward are far above the 
average, and not a few of them rank among the very 
first in their respective Denominations. 

The decree of invalidity, though coming as it does 
from the infallible successor of St. Peter, will not go very 
far in the minds of most Protestants towards counter- 
acting the impartial and weighty testimony of such men 
as Dr. Dollinger. It will be generally recognized that 
the question respecting Anglican Orders is one to be 
settled by the facts of history, not by intuition or in- 
spiration. This being the case, Dollinger's utterance 
will command the respect due to one who speaks or 
writes with the authority of an expert, and consequently 
what he says is much more hkely to influence intelligent, 
sensible people than the decree of the good and amiable 
Italian Ecclesiastic, who enjoys no great reputation for 
learning, and owes what little weight it will have to his 
exalted position. At the " Reunion Conference " held at 
Bonn in A.D. 1874, Dr. Dollinger, who is generally 
ranked as the first theologian and Ecclesiastical histo- 
rian that the nineteenth century has produced, said : 

" The solution of the question depends solely on an 
examination of historical evidence, and I must give it, 
as a result of my investigations, that I have no manner 
of doubt as to the validity of the Episcopal Succession 
in the English Church. The Ordinations of the English 
Bishops since the Reformation were first assailed by a 



144 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



now exploded story, the Nag's Head Fable, and then 
by sundry objections, some of which rested on utterly 
unfounded suppositions, while others were quite as appli- 
cable, or more so, if any importance were to be attached 
to them, to the Ordinations of Roman Catholic Bishops 
and Priests. Circumstances occurred in the Western 
Church, before the Reformation, calculated to raise far 
more serious doubts as to the unbroken succession and 
the validity of many Ordinations than anything which 
has been alleged against English Orders." 

As Anglicans can prove that their Bishops are his- 
torically and Canonically in unbroken succession from 
the Apostles, the Pope's pronunciamento does not dis- 
turb us in the least. All that we regret is that it will 
widen and deepen the gulf between Rome and the rest of 
Catholic Christendom. There now seems to be no pos- 
sibility of the reunion of Greeks and Anglicans with 
Italians for a long time to come. But many are taking 
comfort in the consideration that what the cause of 
unity loses in this direction will be compensated for by 
the accelerated drawing together of the rest of the 
Christian world. There is much more ground than ever 
for the hope that the restoration of intercommunion 
between Greek and Anglican Catholics will take place 
within the next generation. The Greeks will not fail to 
observe, and the observation will produce righteous in- 
dignation, that the Pope of Rome is killing two birds 
with one stone. For, if our Orders are invalid because 
of the reasons which he gives, theirs are the same, and 
if there is anything in the proverbial representation that 
"misery loves company," the decree will tend to bring 
the great Catholic and Apostolic Communions which it 
affects together. Henceforth, either Constant! uople or 
Canterbury — more probably the latter, for she is the 
centre of the race and Church that are rapidly becoming 



ANGLICAN ORDERS. 

dommant-will supplant Rome, which, by the indiscre- 
tion of the present incumbent of the reputed Chair of St. 
Peter, has lost the golden opportunity of becoming the 
reconciler of divided Christendom. 

The reconciliation and bringing back to the Cathohc 
fold of our Denominational brethren probably will take 
much longer than the reunion of Anglicans and Greeks, 
but the Pope's action will hasten this as well, and, we 
believe, make its accomplishment for the most part pos- 
sible within the coming century. Whenever in the prov- 
idence of God that time comes, the Italian Church will be 
compelled to give up its preposterous claims and to 
form one division of the great reunited Catholic army 
which will then march on to the rapid conquest of the 
world for Christ. 

Although the limits to which I have confined myself 
will not admit of adding to or expanding the foregoing 
arguments, it is hoped that enough has been said to 
leave no room for doubt that if a General Council could 
be assembled, and be asked to decide whether or not 
Anglican Orders are valid, the vote would be overwhelm- 
ingly in the affirmative. We should be morally cer- 
tain of the unanimous vote of every branch of Catholic 
Christendom,* except the Roman, and there would be 
many a representative of that Communion, prob- 
ably the majority, certainly the choicest of them, who 
would cast their ballot for us. 



In conclusion let me say, by way of a general answer 
to any quibbles which, for the want of space, have neces- 
sarily failed to receive attention here, that Romanists 
urge no objection against the Anglican Ministry and 
Communion, which will not be found, upon examina- 

* See Appendix XXVII. 
C. A— 10 



146 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROMANISTS. 



tion, to apply with more force against themselves than 
it does against us. We are quite readv to admit that 
our branch of the Catholic Church may have some more 
or less serious defects, for nothing with which imperfect 
men have anything to do can be altogether faultless ; 
but however great our imperfections can be shown to 
be, we should much rather be held responsible for them 
than for those of the Roman Communion. 

The original plan of this lecture provided for the 
taking up of several other points of our controversy 
with Romanists, namely : Framing to the Virgin Mary 
and other saints ; prayers in an unknown tongue ; com- 
pulsory auricular confession; transubstantiation, pen- 
ance, purgatory, image worship and clerical celibacy. 
How^ever, I pass them over the less reluctantly, because 
from the most cursory examination of the Prayer 
Book, which is accessible to all, the Denominational 
reader may see that none of these Roman corruptions 
can be fastened upon the Episcopal Church. Enough 
has been said to convince any candid person that the 
Anglican and Roman Communions differ fundamentally, 
and to show that we are none the less Cathohc because 
we are not under the dominion of the Pope. If, there- 
fore, anyone would discharge the dut}^ incumbent upon 
all, of confessing Christ by identification with some 
branch of His Catholic and Apostolic Church, he can 
make no mistake if he allow himself to be guided by 
the Greek and Anglican conception of the Church, for, 
unlike that of either Denominationalism or Romanism, 
it is in accord with Holy Scripture, when interpreted in 
the light of the history of the earliest and purest Chris- 
tian ages. 



The Church for Americans. 



LECTURE III. 

Our Controversy With Denoamnationalists. 

I. Christ Founded a Visible Chuech. 

TI. Perpetuated by Successors oe the Apostles. 

III. The Appointed Ark of Salvation. 

IV. The Depository of Sacramental Grace. 
V. Objections. 



(1471 



AUTHORITIES. 



CoiT, Puritanism. 

CoTTEEiLL, Bp., Genesis of the Church. 

CoxE, Bp., Apollos, or the Way of God. 

Eagae, The Christian Ministry in the New Testament. 

GoEE, Canon, The Church and the Ministry. 

Hammond, What Does the Bible Say About the Church ? 

Hammond, What is Christ's Church ? 

Hammond, English JTonconformity and Christ's Christianity. 

Hammond, The Christian Church: What Is It? 

Inge AM, England and Rome. 

Marshall, Notes on the Catholic Episcopate. 

MoESE, Apostolical Succession. 

MouNTFiELD, The Church and Puritans. 

Neal, Puritans. (2 Vols.) 

Seabury, Lectures on Haddon's Apostolical Succession. 
Seabury, Introduction to the Study of Ecclesiastical Polity. 
Shields, The Historic Episcopate. 
West, The Kingdom of Heaven upon Earth. 

4f 

PAMPHLETS. 

McIlvaine, Bp., The Origin and Design of the Christian Ministry. 
Thompson, Bp., Concerning the Kingdom of God. 
Thompson, Bp., The Protestant Episcopal Church and Her Rela- 
tion to Other Bodies. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Pitt's Street Chapel Lectures. 

Library of the Fathers— Oxford Edition. 

The Church Defense Institution " Handy Volume." 

The Doctrine of the Apostolic Succession. 

Tracts for the Times— Apostolic Succession. 



Our Controversy with Denomina- 
tionalists. 

HAYING grown up in one oi the many communities 
of Ohio in which the Episcopal Church is not 
represented, I well remember the astonishment 
produced in my mind by the first tractates coucern- 
iug the Church which fell into my hands. They w^ere 
Bishop Randall's "Why I Am a Churchman" and 
Bishop Thompson's " First Principles." The idea that 
some Churches are Divine Institutions, and others only 
human societies was to me altogether new and prepos- 
terous ; so, also, was the doctrine that the Gospel rehgion 
and salvation are inseparably connected with the his- 
toric Church of Christ. All I had previously heard or 
read led me to believe that Christianity was essentially 
doctrinal and spiritual, and only incidentally institu- 
tional To me religion was a faith, an experience, a life 
with which the Church and the Sacraments had noth- 
ing to do, except in so far as they contributed to keep 
up enthusiasm and to prevent from backshdmg. 
This is the view of nine-tenths of the people m the 
various Denominations. Hence they cannot under- 
stand the position of Churchmen, and think that all 
that we have to say about the Church and her three- 
fold ministry coming from the days of the Apostles, is 
so much trifling. 

An editorial in a recent number of a widely circu- 
lated religious paper, speaking of the now famous essay 

(149) 



150 



OUR COXTROVEESY WITH 



on '^The Historic Episcopate," accuses its distiDgiiished 
Presbyterian author, Professor Shields, of surrender- 
ing ''the entire Protestant position in the declaration 
that the institutions of Christianity, its ministry and 
Sacraments, are revealed in the Scriptures no less than 
Its doctrines." ''No Protestant," warmly contends the 
gifted editor, ''if he is Protestant on principle, and un- 
derstands his Protestant principles, will accept an His- 
toric Episcopate as essential to the Church of Christ; 
for he holds that the only thing essential to that Church 
is loyalty to Christ, who is the living and ever-present 
Head, and therefore needs no Yicar or series of Vicars; 
and he holds that the true bond of Church Unity is 
Spiritual and not Ecclesiastical." He then goes on to 
say in almost so many words that Christ did not, as 
Episcopalians would have non-Episcopalians beheve, 
organize an Ecclesiastical society, founding it upon the 
twelve Apostles who had authority to appoint their 
successors, a society that he intended should be the 
depository of His special grace and the revelation of 
His truth. A forcible writer in another popular reli- 
gious paper says: "Denominationalists think that 
Christianity is not concerned with Primacies and Apos- 
tolic successions, that Christianity is a matter of the 
heart and loyalty to Jesus Christ and love to God and 
man; and that all the machinery that goes with the 
Church is but a greater or lesser convenience or burden. 
They are satisfied ^Yith the Kingdom of God, which is 
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." 

In order to secure further reading from'^ those who 
thus flatly deny the premises upon which the chief ar- 
guments of the remainder of the book are based, it is 
necessary to turn aside at this point for the purpose of 
proving four propositions, namely: (1) Christ founded 
a visible organic society. (2) This society has been 



DEXOMIXATIOXALISTS. 



151 



perpetuated tliroiig'li duly constituted successors of the 
Apostles. (3) This Apostolic Church is the appointed 
ark of Gospel salvation, and only by enterino; it can a 
person place himself in assured covenant relationship 
with God. (4:) This Church is also the sole depository 
of Sacramental grace. 

But. before entering upon the task of establishing 
these propositions, a preliminary remark is necessary in 
explanation of the fact that our arguments to a consid- 
erable extent. Avill l)e based upon inferences drawn from 
the Scriptures and Patristic writings rather than upon 
quotations that, in so many words, declare the truth for 
which we contend. This is because the Church had ex- 
isted for a number of years before the earhest of these 
productions were penned. • • The Bible, says an author, 
quoted by the Bishop of Ohio, '• was not put together 
till the Council of Carthage, a. d. 397. When the 
Mcene Creed Avas formulated. Scripture was never even 
appealed to. The three hundred and eighteen Bish- 
ops were asked shtely concerning each article of the 
Apostles" Creed, what its meaning was, according to 
the tradition handed dowui in his Church. Seventy 
years afterward it was found that every particular 
of the Doctrine was registered somewhere or another 
in the written Code, and thus it became an axiom 
that Avhatever claimed to be an article of belief, must 
also 1:)^^ tt^sted and proved by the Avritten word."' 
So. al>o. Bishop Thompson: "The Church was al- 
ready orQ-anized. and at her appointed Avork within 
a year after the Ascension. ]\Ien were admitted into 
her. and trained and taught Avithin her, heard the 
Gospel. -The whole counsel of God." believed it. and 
lived an<;l died by it. before the first hne of the New 



152 



OUR CONTROVERSY AVITH 



Testament was penned. We cannot expect, therefore, 
to find in the New Testament a formally drawn up 
constitution of the Church. The book was not first 
written, and the Church organized according to a plan 
laid down on paper beforehand; but the Church Avas 
first oi'ganized, and then the book was written be- 
cause the Church needed it— required a Avritten record 
of the Gospel she was teaching. The Church produced 
the New Testament, and not the New Testament 
the Church." 

And when, at length, the Avritings of the Apostles and 
Fathers began to come forth, they A\'ere addressed to 
congregations or to individuals, \vho were already 
familiar with the organization instituted by Christ. 
Ifc was, therefore, in no case the object of the author of 
these writings to announce the existence of the Church, 
or to set forth and explain its constitution. The Gos- 
pel writers give fragmentary and supplementary ac- 
counts of our Lord's life and works for the purpose of 
persuading the reader to accept Christ as the promised 
Messiah, or of building up believers in faith and right- 
eousness. The Epistles are, for the most part, con- 
cerned Avith the correction of irregularities in life and 
doctrinal errors. Even the Acts of the Apostles, though 
professedly historical in character, throAv only an in- 
direct light upon the questions which Ave are to'^discuss. 
What, in this respect, is true of the New Testament 
is equally true of the Fathers. They have nothing to 
say directly on the various points of controA-ersy be- 
tAveen the Eomanists or the Denominationalists' and 
ourselA^es, for the simple reason that the Romanism 
and Denominationalism against which Catholic Chris- 
tians of both the Greek and Anghcan Communions pro- 
test, had respectiA-ely no existence, for a thousand and 
fifteen hundred vears. 



DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



\s the Church antedates the Sacred and Patristic 
writings, and as they were addressed to those who had 
her constantly before their eyes, it is not to be expected 
that they will contain a systematic treatise concerning 
Ecclesiastical polity and other matters about which 
there was little, if any, dispute, until many centuries 
later. Under the circumstances we cannot reasonably 
expect to find much beyond incidental remarks and 
hints, which, taken in connection with the Christian in- 
stitution and faith that have come down to us from the 
earhest times, will enable us to determine, with more or 
less certainty, what were the original organization and 
doctrines. The messages of our Presidents do not con- 
tain a history of our origin as a nation, nor do they ex- 
plain our form of government. Nevertheless, if all our 
histories Avere to be lost, these documents, if preserved, 
would enable our descendants to determine whether or 
not they had departed from the constitution by which 
wo have been governed since the time of Washington. 
If a thousand years hence it should be pretended by 
some that up to the year 1896 our form of government 
was an absolute monarchy, the assumption would be 
refuted by innumerable quotations from the Presiden- 
tial messages. The same would be true if, on the other 
hand, any should maintain that, until our day, there 
were forty-nine independent nations in the United 
States. 

Now what it is desired that the reader shall clearly 
perceive is this— though the argument by which it 
would be shown that the America of the nineteenth cen- 
tury was one nation under a Democratic form of gov- 
ernment, would be chiefly inferential, it would not- 
withstanding be strong enough to convince the great 
majority of our descendants of, say, the thirtieth cen- 
tury. Ts'o doubt the monarchists ow the one hand and 



OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DEXOMINATIOXALISTS. 



the miiJtuuitionalists on the other, would quote id their 
support nmD3^ isolated passages from the messages, but 
the advocates of Democracy and Unit}^ would insist 
that such quotations must be interpreted in harmony 
^Yith the general drift of the utterances of the President's 
and with the fact that the government which had come 
down to them was unified and representative, and that 
this inestimable inheritance still had the cordial sup- 
port of nine out of every ten of all the millions of Amer- 
ican citizens. 

The arguments of Anglican and Greek Christians, so 
far as they are based upon the New Testament and 
Patristic writings, are confessedly, to a great extent, 
inferential. We infer that the extremes of Romanism 
and Denominationalism are-wi'ong, because in the 
hterary remains of the Apostohc age and first centuries, 
there is no trace either of the Papacy or of non-Epis- 
copal sectarianism, while what light is indirectly 
thrown upon the subject reveals the truth of our con- 
ception of the Church. Nor does the doctrine concern- 
ing the Church for which we contend, stand alone in 
being largely supported by inferences drawn from the 
Bible rather than by clear,positive statements. On the 
contrary some of the chief doctrines set forth in tlie ' 
Creeds and Confessions of Faith are inferred from, rather 
than expressly taught by, the Scriptures. This, for ex- 
ample, is true even of the fundamental doctrine of the 
Trinity. Indeed it would seem to be a characteristic of 
God's revelation, whether through His works or in His 
Word, that only so much is made manifest as will en- 
able the earnest student to arrive at something hke 
satisfactory conclusions concerning the rest. Both the 
scientist and the theologian must ascend the ladder of 
inferences, the one to learn the mysteries of creation, 
andtheother those of redemption. Of course theforraer 



CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 



155 



must make sure that the lower end of the ladder stands 
upon some well-ascertained law of nature, and the 
latter that it is planted upon the sure Word of God, for 
only so will the upper end lean securely against the 
truth. 

But we by no means rest our case wholly upon 
Biblical and Patristic inferences. We also appeal to 
history which we think bears testimony for us and 
against them. How far we are right in this has already 
appeared so far as Romanism is concerned. Unless we 
are greatly mistaken, it will be seen as we proceed that 
Denominationalism is equally unable to endure the 
historical test. 



I. 

CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 

NO attentive reader of the Holy Scriptures, whether 
Episcopahan or non-Episcopalian, denies that 
they are filled with prophecies of, and references 
to something which is variously denominated ''the 
Kingdom," "the Church," "the Body," and "the Bride 
of Christ." Moreover, there is no difference of opinion 
touching the fact that Christ would have all men to be 
His Disciples, and followers of His precepts and ex- 
ample; and that those who do His will are so united to 
Him, and stand in such close relationship to each other 
that' thev constitute a separate and distinct family, in 
the world, but not of it. All alike hold that there is a 
vast invisible society, composed of true behevers and 
the pure in heart, the number of which no man, but 
God only, can tell. But though all who confess the 
name of'Christ go together thus far in the interpreta- 
tion of the phrases just mentioned, the Denominational 
minority separate from the Catholic majority, when the 



156 OUR COXTROYERSY WITH DEXOMINATIONALISTS. 



latter contend that the expressions have primary, if not 
sole, reference to a diYinelv constituted visible organi- 
zation, the constituency of ^vhich may be determined as 
certainly as that of the United States or of any civilized 
commonvrealth. 

Now which of these views is right? Of all religious 
questions this is at the present time the one of the most 
world-wide and intense interest, for upon its answer de- 
pends more than upon anything else the reunion of 
English-speaking Christians. As the writer of one of 
the editorials quoted above says: " The consumma- 
tion of Church Unity must wait until Protestant [non- 
Episcopalian] Christians are convinced that Christ insti- 
tuted an Ecclesiastical society into which every follower 
of His should enter." The answer to the "^question, 
Did our Lord found such a society? like all the points of 
dispute between Denominationalists and Episcopahans, 
must, of course, be determined by a study of the Scrip- 
tures in the light of the Primitive Fathers and Eccle- 
siastical History. I say Scripture in the light of the 
Fathers and history, because, though the texts which 
can be quoted in support of the institutional concep- 
tion of Christianity, are as numerous and conclusive as 
those that might be cited in proof of almost any of the 
fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, 3^et if we 
confined ourselves to them and to dogmatizing about 
them, the argument would be comparatively w^eak and 
unsatisfactory, because large parts of the Sacred Record 
which more or less clearly favor our conclusion, would 
not be taken into the account. 



Starting then with the Scriptures as a basis, let us 
proceed to determine whether or not the mission of 
Christ, as non-Episcopahans claim, simply was the pro- 



CHRIST J'OtTNDEt) A YISlBLE CHURCH. 



157 



mulgation of a system of philosophy and doctrine, 
which, at the Ascension being left to itself, or to such 
voluntary associations as His Disciples might see fit to 
form, should leaven and regenerate the human race; or 
whether, as is claimed by Episcopahans, He made pro- 
vision through a visible organic society for the pres- 
ervation and universal dissemination of the knowledge 
of His revelation, precepts, and example, and for the 
conveyance of His enabling grace to behevers, who, 
through the instrumentality of the Sacraments, are by 
the Holy Ghost joined to Him in living union as the 
husbandman unites the graft to the tree or vine. 

That the society instituted by Christ was a visible 
organization rather than a school of philosophy, may 
be inferred from the prophecies of the Old Testament 
relating to the Messiah. According to them one of the 
chief reasons for His coming was to restore the throne 
of David and to establish an everlasting kingdom. 
Now the Davidic Kingdom was an organized visible in- 
stitution. Indeed, in the nature of things, there could 
be no such thing as an unorganized kingdom, or an or- 
ganized kingdom which would be invisible. There can 
be no question that the Messianic prophecies lend their 
support to the Episcopahan rather than to the De- 
nominational conception of the Christian society. The 
same is true of the names by which this society is re- 
ferred to in the New Testament Scriptures, ''the Kingdom 
of God," "the Church of Christ," "the Body of Christ," 
"theBride of Christ." These phrases all refer toavisible 
organism between which and an undefined school of phi- 
losophy there is no possible correspondence. Moreover, 
in the parabolic teaching of our Lord and the Apostles 
this society is compared to many things which are 
visible, and more or less highly organized. It is like "a 
field," "a vineyard," "a mustard tree," "a net," 



iOb OUR COXTROYEESY WITH DEXOMIXATIOXALISTS. 

''leaYeD,'* -a city set ona hill," -tlie human bodA' " ^'a 
household/'-' a sheepfold/" and so on. Surelv it Vill be 
admitted that, if Christ intended simply to preach the 
Gospel and leave it to spread through all the world 
without the aid of an institution, His^ doctrine might 
hare been more aptly illustrated; but, on the other 
hand, if it was His intention to found a visible societv in 
which the Gospel should be preserved during ah the ages 
and disseminated throughout the world, no better 
illustrations are conceivable. 

It has been held apparently upon good ground, that 
at least one of the similitudes, the parable of the leaven, 
favors the Denominational conception of an invisible 
Church. It is maintained that the leaven works unob- 
served until the whole lump is leavened. But. though 
this be true, the leaven itself is visible as are also the 
meal into which it is put and the woman who kneads 
the dough. If, therefore, the parable of the leaven illus- 
trates the mysterious secret workings of the Holy 
Spirit, it nevertheless lends its support to the conclu- 
sion that ordinarily His operations are through the 
visible agencies of the Church and her ministry. 

T^^hen our Lord said that He would build His Church 
upon the foundation of faith in His Divinity, He had 
reference to a visible organization. This is evident fi-om 
the fulfillment of the promise of which we read in the 
Acts of the Apostles. On the Day of Pentecost three 
thousand were added to the Church. This proves that 
the membership of the society founded by Christ may 
be known, for it can be numbered, and that, therefore, 
the society itself is visible. 

Again, the Church of Holy Scripture is not, as De- 
nominationalists say, a human organization, founded 
by the voluntary coming together of Christians ; but it 
is, as Episcopalians and the representatives of every 



CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 



159 



branch of the Cathohc Church hold, a Divine institution, 
membership in which is necessary on the part of all who 
would become Christians. This appears from its name, 
Ecclesia, which means an assembly of those who have 
been called. Christ established a Church, and made it 
the duty of its charter members, the Apostles, to go in 
person, and in the persons of their representatives and 
successors, into all the world, and by the preaching of 
the Gospel to call all men into it. Those who accepted 
the good news were to be admitted into the Kingdom 
by Baptism, and to be retained in it so long as they 
maintained fellowship with the Apostles by holding 
their doctrines, joining in the prayers, and partaking of 
the Eucharistic meal. 

"Men speak," says the Bishop of London, "as if 
Christians came first, and the Church afterwards ; as if 
the origin of the Church was in the wills of the indi- 
vidual Christians who composed it. But, on the con- 
trary, throughout the teaching of the Apostles, we see 
that it is the Church which comes first, and the mem- 
bers of it afterwards. Men were not brought to Christ, 
and then determined that they would live in a com- 
munity. Men were not brought to beheve in Christ and 
in the Cross, and then decided that it would be a great 
help to their religion that they should join one another 
in the worship of the Father through His Name. In the 
New Testament, on the contrary, the Kingdom of Hea- 
ven is already in existence, and men are invited into 
it. The Church takes its origin, not in the will of man, 
but in the will of the Lord Jesus Christ. Everywhere 
men are called in; they do not come in, and make the 
Church by coming. They are called into that which al- 
ready exists ; they are recognized as members when they 
are within; but their membership depends upon their 
admission, and not upon their constituting themselves 



160 QUE COXTEOVEESY WITH DEXOMIXATIOXALISTS. 



a body in the sight of the Lord. In the ^^e^Y Testament 
the Church flo\Ys out from the Lord, not flows into 
Him. In the New Testament, tlie ministers are sent 
forth to gather the children of men within the fold, and 
are not simply selected by the members of the Church to 
help them in their spiritual hfe." 

"Jesus," says another able writer, ^^never speaks of 
the Kingdom as something which men could constitute 
for themselves; it must come to them." And Dr. MiUi- 
gan, a distinguished Scotch Presbyterian professor and 
author, has brought out this point with perfect clear- 
ness. "' The true idea of the Church on earth. " he writes, 
''is, therefore, not that of a body starting from earth 
and reaching onwards to a heavenly condition, to be 
perfectly attained hereafter. It is rather the idea of a 
Body starting from HeaA^en, and so exhibiting, amidst 
the inhabitants and things of time, the gTaces and 
privileges already ideally bestowed upon it, tliat it may 
lead the world either to come to the light or to condemn 
itself because it loves the darkness rather than the hght, 
its deeds being evil. It will follow that the community 
thus constituted must be the visible representative of 
our Lord, while He is Himself iuAisible. and that to it 
must be committed the work, which, in personal pres- 
ence with us. He can no longer do. As the Father 
sent Me, so send I you — Prophets, Priests, and Kings- 
envoys of the Father through the Spirit, proceeding 
from the Father and the Son." 

The name given by Gentiles to the followers of Christ 
also favors the Anglican, rather than the Denomina- 
tional, conception of our Lord's mission. The Disciples 
w^ere called Christians first in Antioch." The form of 
the word Chnstiani indicates their adherence ''not as 
Disciples to the founder of a school — in that case 
it would have been Christici— hut rather as partisans 



CHRIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 



161 



to a leader aud commander. The Christians were not 
merely people of a certain Avay of thinking, suggested 
to them by Christ: they were a party who wanted 
Christ to be King." 



Denominationalists endeavor to support their theory 
of the Church by such texts as -'The Kingdom of God 
is within you." "'The Kingdom of God is not meat and 
drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
Ghost." "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision 
availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which 
worketh by love." •" Christ sent me not to baptize but 
to preach the Gospel." '' The Church of God which he 
purchased with His blood." ''He is the Head of the 
Body, the Church." AYe are come to the Church of the 
first born who are enrolled in Heaven . " " " Whenever two 
or three are gathered together in my name, there am I 
in the midst of them. " " Jesus said, Forbid him not, for 
there is no man that shall do a miracle in My Name 
that can lightly speak evil of Me." '"For he that is not 
against us is on our part." 

If these texts comprehended all that the New Testa- 
ment has to say upon the subject, Episcopalians would 
have decidedly the worst of the argument : but in reality 
they represent only one side of the truth: the other is 
expressed in such passages as these: ''Thou art Peter, 
and upon this Rock I will build My Church: and the gates 
of Heh shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven : and what- 
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in Heaven." "Tell it unto the Church: 
but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto 
thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say 

C.A.— 11 



lb J OUR COXTEOYERSY WITH DENOMmATIOKALISTS. 

imto you, AVhatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be 
bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
earth shall be loosed in Heaven." " Then said Jesus to 
them again, Peace be unto you, as My Father hath 
sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said 
this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Re- 
ceive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they 
are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain 
tliey are retained.'' "\]\ power is given unto Me in 
Heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : 
and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world." 

These passages, and many others, including most of 
our Lord's Pai'ables, and all that the Gospels have to 
say about the Kingdom of Heaven or of God, and the 
Epistles about ''the Church," "the Body," and "the 
Bride of Christ," are inexplicable upon the Denomina- 
tional hypothesis that "Christ did not institute an 
Ecclesiastical society into which every follower of His 
should enter." Romanists have made too much of them ; 
but are Denominationalists therefore justified in pass- 
ing them over altogether? Because they do not teach 
tliat the Pope is infallible and that the Papal Commu- 
nion comprehends the whole of the One, Catholic, and 
Apostolic Church, must we conclude that they mean 
nothing at all, or the opposite of what they plainly 
say ? 

It is impossible for Denominationalists to explain 
the texts upon which they rely to prove that the Church 
of Christ is the unorganized invisible society of true 
believers, or at most the aggregate of voluntary 
associations of Christians, in harmony with tliose 



CHRIST FOlTTs^DEB A VISIBLE CHUECH. 



1(33 



which Episcopalians cite as evidence that our Lord 
organized, or provided in the Apostles for the or- 
ganization of a visible society which, through the 
Apostohc Succession, has been perpetuated to this 
day. But we have the advantage of having no diffi- 
culty whatever in explaining their texts in harmony 
with ours. 

The texts quoted by Denominationalists against Epis- 
copahans may be divided into two classes, those which 
are supposed to teach the invisibility of the Church, and 
such as are believed to support the pretension that 
there is no body of Christians which can make good an 
exclusive claim to allegiance. In order to prevent rep- 
etition, we shall confine ourselves for the present to 
the first group, reserving what we have to say about 
the second for other connections. And in the interest 
of brevity we shall consider the texts which have sub- 
stantially the same import in pairs. 

"The kingdom of God is within you." ''The King- 
dom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness 
and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Denomination- 
alists quote these texts for the purpose of proving that 
the rehgion of Christ is subjective rather than objective. 
If they can make this appear, it follows as a matter of 
course that the Church is essentially invisible, for, if 
Christianity be exclusively a religion of the heart, none 
but God can know who embraces it. Now no one denies 
that the Church of the Gospels has a spiritual side 
to which these texts and others like them refer; 
but, because we recognize this, are we logicall}^ forced 
to the conclusion that Ecclesiasticism is no part 
of Evangehcal truth? Though man has an invisible 
mind, he nevertheless possesses a visible body. When 
we speak of the former without reference to the lat- 
ter, it is not concluded that the person referred to 



164 OUE CONTEOYERSY WITH DEXOMINATIONALISTS. 



has only a mental existence. EYery text which relates 
to the invisible principles, hfe, and fruits, of the Chris- 
tian religion, can be offset by at least a dozen that refer 
to a visible organization instituted by Christ. There 
is an universally recognized canon of interpretation 
which prohibits the construing of one passage of the 
Scriptures so as to contradict another. Only in so far 
as this law is ignored, is there any truth in the popular 
misconception that almost anything can be proved 
from the Bible. Had this rule not been disregarded, 
Denomlnationalists could never have found any Scrip- 
tural ground upon which to stand. In order to justify 
sectarianism, they invented the theory of the invisibil- 
ity of the Church. This ingenious conceit was rendered 
plausible by the desperate expedient of interpreting 
a few texts so as to make them contradictory to the 
whole tenor of both the Old and the New Testament. 
Before their interpretation of the isolated passages, 
upon which they rest their cause, can be accepted, every 
book of the Bible will have to be rewritten; and not 
only this, but eighteen hundred years of Ecclesiastical 
History must be blotted out. It should be remembered, 
too, that, the authorized translation of the first ot 
these texts is in dispute. Alford insists that it should 
be "'among'' instead of "AYithin.'- The weight of au- 
thority inclines to this interpretation, and with good 
reason. It is inconceivable that our Lord in speaking 
to the Pharisees should have said "the Kingdom of 
Heaven is within 3'ou," that is, in your hearts ; for in no 
sense was this true of them. 

Those who hold that Christ did not found a visible 
Church, with which He would have every disciple identi- 
fied, also quote these texts: "For in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision aYaileth anj^thing, nor uncircum- 
cision, but faith which worketh by love." " Christ sent 



CHEIST FOrXDED A VISIBLE CHUECH. 



165 



me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." As cir- 
cnmcision was a rite of initiation into the Jewish 
Church, it is argued from these texts that the ex- 
ternahsm of the Old Dispensation has been wholly 
done away in the New. But upon this hypothesis the 
circumcision of our Lord, and His participation in the 
synagogue and Temple worship are inexphcable, as are 
also the^facts that He appointed Baptism as the initia- 
tory rite of the Society which He founded, and that the 
Apostles deemed it absolutely necessary to administer 
this Sacrament to all converts. Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper are so plainly required in the New Testa- 
ment, that even Denominationahsts almost universally 
have felt called upon to administer them. But so long 
as they maintain the invisibility of the Church, it would 
seem that consistency requires that, like the Quakers, 
they should renounce the use of visible ordinances ; for 
by continuing to admit and retain members by their 
use, they witness against themselves. None of the lead- 
ing non-Episcopahan Denominations will accept an 
unbaptized person as a member. This being the case, 
their representatives cannot consistently quote these 
texts against us. 

With more plausibility Denominationahsts make the 
fohowing citations in support of their invisibihty 
theory of the Church: "The Church of God which He 
purchased with His blood." ''He is the head of the 
Body, the Church." There can be no doubt that if there 
be any such thing as an unrecognizable Church com- 
posed exclusively of the sanctified, it is here referred to. 
For surely the ''Church of God," the '-Church of Christ" 
includes at least all who are destined to be so happy as 
to attain Gospel Salvation. There is no difference of 
opinion between us and Denominationahsts on this 
point. Our contention is upon the question whether or 



166 OUE CONTEOTERSY WITH DENOMINATIO^s'ALISTS. 



not "the Church," " theBody,"has reference to a visible 
organization containing both good and bad. They 
argue, with some show of reason, that "the Body" of 
which Christ is the head, is, and must necessarily be, "a 
'ious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any 
such thing, but that it should be holy and without 
blemish." But this in all probability is not the decla- 
ration of an existing fact. It is more likely a prophecy 
of what the Church will be at the consummation of all 
things when the tares shall be separated from the 
wheat. 

It is asserted that a "body having corrupt members 
cannot have an immaculate Head." We reph^ that God 
was certainly the head of the Jewish Church which had 
man}^ unrighteous members; in fact all who belonged 
to it were more or less so. "Everybody allows," says 
Mr. Hammond, "that the ancient Jewish Church, the 
Church before Christ, was a visible Church, and God's 
Church — God's Church and people, in spite of its many 
corruptions — and one Church and one bod}^, the com- 
munion of the circumcised : every one knows how de- 
praved, how rotten, even that was, and yet evevj man 
Avho knows his Bible also knows that it was not lawful 
for any man to leave it and found another. " The Psalm- 
ist declares there is "none holy, no, not one." As in 
the Old Dispensation, all failed in their efforts to keep 
the law, so in the New all have fallen short of their high 
calling in Christ Jesus. Thus if our Lord be the Head of 
any Church, it must be of a hodj in which not onl}^ 
some, but all its members are more or less imperfect. If 
credence is given to their own testimonj^, it will be ad- 
mitted that the most eminent Saints in all ages have 
been far from perfect. And if, as Denominationalists con- 
tend "the Church is composed not of the christened, but 
of the Christlike," then there is not, never has been, and 



CHRIST rOUXDED A VISIBLE CHURCH. 



167 



probably never will be, a Scriptural Cliurch on earth. 
Even the Apostles St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Barnabas 
would not have been eligible for membership in such a 
Church. If Churches consist of the Christlike" only, 
most of them will be reduced to me and the meenister " 
with oTave doubts as to the minister! ''Let us sup- 
pose," savs Wilham Law in his letters to the Bishop ot 
Bano'or, ''that the Church of Christ was this invisible 
number of people united to Christ by such internal m- 
visible graces. Is it possible that a kingdom, consisting 
of this one particular sort of people invisibly good, 
should be like a net that gathers oi every kind of fish? 
If it were to be compared to a net, it ought to be com- 
pared to such a net as gathers only of one kind, namely, 
good fish, and then it might represent to us a Church 
that has but one sort of members. If anyone should 
tell us that we are to believe invisible Scriptures and 
observe invisible Sacraments, he would have just as 
much reason and Scripture on his side as your Lord- 
ship has for this doctrine. And it would be of the same 
service to the world to talk of these invisibilities if the 
canon of Scripture were in dispute, as to describe this 
invisible Church, when the case is with what visible 
Church we ought to unite." 

That the texts do not support the Denominational 
theory of invisibiUty is further evident from the fact 
that one of them, as we see from the context, refers to 
a Ch^urch having "Elders," whom St. Paul exhorts "to 
feed the Church of God." Xow, these Ephesian Elders 
and the Christians whom they were charged to shep- 
. herd were visible. It is impossible otherwise to thmk of 
them. In the other text the Church is spoken of as 
"the Bodv of Christ." An invisible body is also \m- 
thinkable.' It is of the essence of a body to be recogniz- 
able. The Denominationalists, themselves, do not think 



168 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



of something invisible when they speak of the Congre- 
gational, Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist bodies. 
These are all visible societies. 

There still remains the strongest text quoted by 
Denominationalists to prove their theory. "We are 
come," says the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
''to the Church of the first born who are enrolled in 
Heaven." At first sight it would seem as if they must 
be right in maintaining that such words cannot possi- 
bly have reference to a Church composed of both good 
and bad. The difficulty arises from the mistaken idea 
that the names of none can be written in the Book of 
Life, except of those who are in the state of salvation, 
and destined to remain so to their life's end. It is 
strange that those who have so much to say about 
''conversion," and "backsliding," should lose sight of 
the fact that a name once registered in Heaven may be 
blotted out. If there be such a thing as falling from 
grace, no reason can be assigned why the word Church 
in this passage should mean something different from 
what it does everywhere else in Holy Scripture. 



If, now, we turn for a few minutes to history, we 
shall see even more clearly than we have seen from our 
necessarily incomplete examination of the Scriptures, 
that the society instituted by Christ is a visible organ- 
ization. 

The Sacrament of Baptism, as we already have had 
occasion to observe, conclusively shows this to be the 
case; it has been administered from the beginning al- 
most universally. Though there has been some differ- 
ence of opinion, especially since the Reformation, as to 
the benefits annexed to this ordinance, all agree that it 
formally admits the recipient to the society of believers, 



CHEIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHUECH. 



169 



Now, a societ3^ which makes provision by the adminis- 
tration of a visible Sacrament, for the reception into 
membership of visible men and women, is certainly a 
visible organization. 

The legislation of this society as manifestly proves it 
to have been highly organized. The pages of Ecclesias- 
tical History from the beginning to the end are largely 
occupied with the accounts of the Councils, Synods and 
Convocations which have borne essentially the same 
relation to the society founded by Christ as Senates, 
Parliaments and Legislatures bear to the various civil 
commonwealths of the world. These Legislative As- 
semblies of the Church, the first of which met at Jeru- 
salem in Apostolic times, settled disputes; decided which 
books were Divinely inspired and should, therefore, 
be regarded as a part of the Bible; formulated the Faith 
once delivered to the Saints; and passed a great body of 
laws or canons for the regulation of the Church. The 
Councils and their acts prove beyond peradventure that 
the society founded by Christ, was a visible organiza- 
tion, just as much so as is the United States, or any 
other nation. 

The persecutions which the Church suffered during 
the first four or five centuries prove the same. It was 
the uniform policy of the civil authorities to smite the 
Christian Shepherds that the sheep might be scattered. 
An unorganized society would have had no rulers that 
could have been singled out from the rest to suffer the 
terrible vengeance of the law, and obviously an invisible 
society could not have been persecuted at all. 

The fact that the Church has in all ages excommuni- 
cated those who have been guilty of great offenses, also 
proves that she is a visible organization. That part of 
St. Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians in which he 
gives directions concerning the course to be pursued in 



170 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIOXALISTS. 

the case of a notorious evil liver, and the excommuni- 
cation of Arius and other notable heresiarchs by the 
Councils, are inexplicable upon the Denominational 
hypothesis of an invisible Church. 

But perhaps the strongest historical argument in 
favor of that view of Christ's mission for which we con- 
tend, namely, that in addition to the teaching of a new 
philosoph}^ of life and illustrating it in a career of self- 
sacrifice which ended in the atoning death on the cross. 
He organized a new Kingdom, is found in the simple fact 
that befo}*e the Reformation the Denominational idea 
never obtained. For fifteen hundred years it was uni- 
versally believed that Christ had made provision for the 
preservation of the new wine of the Gospel by the crea- 
tion for it of a new receptacle, the Church. The notion 
that the hearts of true believers Avere to be the onl^^ 
receptacle, never occurred to any one, and a suggestion 
to this effect would have been ridiculed as preposterous. 
How this could have been the case, if the theory of an 
unorganized invisible Church be correct, has never been 
satisfactorily explained. 

Inclosing our argument in favor of the Episcopalian 
conception of the Church, we may venture to call atten- 
tion to the inconsistency of the great majority of those 
who would persuade us that the society instituted by 
Christ w^as not a visible organization. Methodists, 
Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists and many 
other bodies of Christians have made for themselves 
more or less elaborate organizations, and are leaving 
no stone unturned which Avill contribute to their up- 
building. By doing so they virtu all 3^ profess to be wiser 
than Christ; for, according to their representation, He 
had not like them the wisdom to perceive the necessity 
for a corporate Christianity. They contend that the 
Christian religion without organization could not, un- 



CHEIST FOUNDED A VISIBLE CHUECH. 



171 



der present conditions, make progress against opposing 
influences in the conquest of the world for Christ. In 
this they are unquestionably right. There can be no 
doubt that if the various organizations of Christians 
were to disband, the cause of Christ would rapidly wane 
until Satan could boast of a complete triumph. But 
were the conditions of the first centuries more favorable 
to Christianity than they have been for the past two 
or three hundred years, within which it has been found 
necessary to organize several hundred Christian socie- 
ties? No. On the contrary, the Gospel in our day 
would stand a thousand chances to one in our Lord's 
time of making its way without the assistance of an 
organization. The greatest obstacle now to be over- 
come is a languid indifference; then the way had to be 
fought through a solid phalanx of the most powerful 
an(? persistent opposition. It would be a marvel be- 
yond all comprehension, if the Divine Founder of our 
Holy Rehgion who knew that He would be nailed to tlie 
cross and that His Apostles and their successors for a 
long time would nearly all suffer martyrdom, had been 
so devoid of foresight as to quit the world without 
leaving an organization which would be 'compact and 
vigorous enough to live and grow in spite of all the 
organized forces which heathendom, through the 
representatives of the Roman Empire, could muster 
against it. 

St. Augustine, one of the greatest theologians that 
the Church has produced, must, therefore, have been 
right when, as an able summariser points out, he taught 
that The Kingdom of God was not a mere hope, but a 
present reality ; not a mere name for a Divine idea, but 
an institution, duly organized among men, subsisting 
from one generation to another ; closely inter-connected 
with earthly rule, with definite guidance to give, and a 



172 OUR COXTEOYEESY WITH DEXOMIXATIOXALISTS. 

definite part to take in all the affairs of actual life. To 
him the Kingdom of God was an actual Polity, just as 
the Roman Empire was a Polity, too. It was*^ ' visible ' 
in just the same way as the earthly state, for it was a 
real institution with definite organization, with a recog- 
nized constitution, with a code of laws and means of 
enforcing them, with property for its use, and officers 
to direct it." 

II. 

PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSOPS OF THE APOSTLES, 

THAT our Lord intended His Church or Kingdom 
to continue through the ages is antecedently 
probable, because the conditions which made the 
founding of it necessary, would require its continuation. 
This generation of sinful men and women need the re- 
generating influence of the Church quite as much as 
that which witnessed its founding. To argue otherwise 
would be to accuse of partiality Him who was no re- 
specter of persons. 

Again it may be inferred, if not positively concluded, 
from Holy Scripture that the Church was designed to 
continue through all generations. The numerous 
prophecies of the Old Testament in which the mission of 
the Messiah is represented to be that of founding an 
everlasting Kingdom and universal Dominion certainly 
favor this conclusion. When our Lord said "upon this 
rock," the confession of faith in His Divinity, "I will 
build My Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail 
against it ; " when He commissioned His Apostles to 
" Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost : teaching them to observe all things whatsocYer 



PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 178 

I have commanded;" and when He gave them this 
promise for their encouragement, "Lo! I am with you 
alway even unto the end of the world," it is as if he had 
proclaimed the perpetuity of the Church in almost so 
many words. Certainly nothing else can be inferred 
from these texts. 

Furthermore, if the Church were to continue, since it 
could only do so through a succession of officers, it is 
antecedently probable that the Apostolic College, which 
after the Ascension, was the visible head of the Church, 
would not be allowed to die out with the twelve. All 
other organizations that the. world has ever known, 
have made provision for a succession of their chief offi- 
cers, and there is no reason to suppose that it was to 
be otherwise with the Church of Christ. The promise, 
"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world," besides proving that the Church is to endure 
through all the ages, proves the same of the Apostolic 
office. The College of Apostles was constituted a 
moral, corporate personality, which was to continue to 
the end of the world. Its identity is no more diminished 
by the perpetual succession of its members, than our 
individuality is affected by the constant change of the 
elements that compose our bodies. 

The fact that the Apostolate was not hmited to the 
original twelve, justifies the inference that this office 
was to be perpetuated in an uninterrupted succession. 
Matthias was elected to take the place of Judas. The 
Church of Antioch, acting under express direction of 
the Holy Ghost, set apart, by the imposition of hands, 
St. Paul and St. Barnabas to be Apostles. James, the 
Lord's brother, evidently was consecrated by the Apos- 
toMc College the first Apostle or Bishop of Jerusalem. 
Timothy and Titus were made Apostles, respectively, of 
Ephesus and Crete. St. Jerome, one distinguished even 



174 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



among Saints, himself only a Presbyter, writes: ''Im- 
mediately after the passion of the Lord, James was or- 
dained by the Apostles Bishop of Jerusalem." "That 
Timothy was a Bishop," says Bishop Bull, "and Bishop 
of Ephesus, the metropolis, or chief city of Asia, is so 
fully attested by all antiquity, that he must be either 
very ignorant or very shameless that shall deny it, es- 
pecially there being besides very plain evidence of the 
Episcopal power and authority, wherewith he was in- 
vested, in this very Epistle of St. Paul written to him." 
St. Jerome calls Titus "Bishop of Crete;" St. Ambrose 
says, "The Apostle Consecrated Titus Bishop ;" Theo- 
doret, that he was "the Bishop of the Cretans;" and 
so the whole band of witnesses. 

When, in addition to what might naturally be in- 
ferred, we take into account the fact that in all ages and 
every part of the world there have been men claiming to 
be, and universally recognized as, successors to the Apos- 
tles, the conclusion that the inference respecting the per- 
petuation of the Church through Bishops of the Apos- 
toHc Succession is correct, can hardly be resisted. As 
Mr. Haddan points out, "in one sense ApostoHc Suc- 
cession requires a compKcated proof; in another it is a 
palpable fact— as much a matter of moral certainty as 
is the actual appointment, by the rightful authority, 
of ministers of the state. No one doubts the fact of 
the Ordination of the Clergy or Bishops now offici- 
ating, although, among some myriads, there may oc- 
casionally have been an impostor. Yet this assurance is 
not founded on personal inspection of legal evidence. It 
rests upon the overwhelming presumption that the fact 
would not be as it is, unless the legal evidence were be- 
hind it; and this presumption extends back to the be- 
ginning as regards the Church." "It is," as Bishop 
Hugh Miller Thompson says, "merely trifling with 



PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 175 

words if a man knows, and evidence of incompetency 
to express an opinion if he does not know, to say, 
'you cannot prove that, from any modern Bishop up 
to the Apostles, there is a continuous succession of 
Ordainers.' You might as well tell me I cannot prove 
that the oak tree on the lawn has an unbroken de- 
scent from some oak of two thousand years ago! I 
do not need to prove a self-evident fact in nature, 
or a self-evident fact in organic society. The oak of 
to-day proves the oak of twenty centuries ago. The 
Bishop of to-day proves the Bishop of eighteeu cen- 
turies ago. They knew oaks then from bramble bushes 
as well as we do. They knew Bishops just as well as 
we do, perhaps better, and they knew, too, that Bish- 
ops came from Bishops as oaks come from oaks. There 
is no other way known to man to get either oaks or 
Bishops. The ground has been gone over so many 
times, and so carefully and exhaustively, and by such 
thorough scholarship, that one may rest in peace." 

There can be no doubt that, if the Apostolic office 
were continued in the Church, it would be the center of 
unity and the fountain of ministerial authority ; hence 
we are right in saying that the Church itself was perpet- 
uated through the Apostles and their successors. They 
were the representatives of Chrif?t, and after His Ascen- 
sion, the visible head of the Church. Before He returned 
to the right hand of the Father to make intercession for 
us he gave them all power and said: ''As my Father 
hath sent me even so send I you." Nothing, therefore, 
could be more certain than that the Apostles and their 
successors were appointed by Christ Himself to be His 
representatives. As before the Ascension there would 
have been no Church without Christ as its head, so 
since then, there can be no true Christian Church with- 
out the representative headship of the Apostolate. 



176 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 

We are aware that these inferences will seem new and 
strange to many, but we submit to the candid reader 
that they are naturally drawn from the texts which 
have passed under review. And we are all the more 
confident as to the correctness of our conclusions, be- 
cause of the fact that they are in accord with the repre- 
sentations that were made by the early Fathers and the 
great Doctors of the Church. Let us see what some of 
them have to say about (1) the perpetuation of the 
Apostolic office in the Episcopate, and (2) the necessity 
of Bishops to the existence of the Church. 

1. What then do the ancients say concerning the per- 
petuation of the Apostolic office through the Historic 
Episcopate? 

St. Clement of Rome, a.d. 95, says that "desiring to 
avoid controversy which they foresaw, the Apostles 
ordained certain men to the end that, when they should 
have fallen asleep in death, others of approved charac- 
ter might succeed to their special office." Such were 
Timothy and Titus. 

Irenceus, a. d. 180: "We must obey those who are 
the Elders in the Church, those who, as we have shown, 
have the succession from the Apostles ; who, with the 
succession of the Episcopate, have received also the 
sure gift of truth, according to the will of the Father ; 
but as for the rest, who leave the original succession, 
and come together wherever it may be, them we must 
hold in suspicion, whether as heretics of a wrong opin- 
ion, or as men who make division through pride and 
self-pleasing, or again, as hypocrites." "All who wish to 
see the truth, have it in their power to fix their eyes on 
the tradition of the Apostles, which is manifested in all 
the w^orld; and we can recount the number of those, 
who were appointed by the Apostles as Bishops in the 
Churches, and their successors down to our own time, 



PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 177 

who neither taught nor had any knowledge of the wild 
notions of these men. For had the Apostles known any 
mysteries which they taught to the perfect in private, 
and unknown to the rest, they would have delivered 
them to those surely before all others, to whom they in- 
trusted the very Churches themselves. For they desired 
them to be eminently perfect and utterly without re- 
proach, whom they left behind as their actual successors, 
handing on to them their own position of presidency." 

Tertullian, a. d., 200, adopts Irenseus' line of argu- 
ment and enlarges upon it in dealing with Gnostic 
heretics. He asks them a double question : First, do 
they hold the rule of Faith? Second, have they an 
Apostohc Succession? ''Let them produce the ac- 
count of the origins of their Churches ; let them unroll 
the line of their Bishops, running down in such a way 
from the beginning that their first Bishop shall have 
had for his authorizer and predecessor one of the Apos- 
tles, or of the Apostolic men who continued to the end 
in their fellowship. This is the way in which the Apos- 
tolic Churches hand on their registers. As the Church of 
the Smyrnseans relates that Polycarp was installed by 
John, as the Church of the Romans relates that Clement 
was ordained by Peter, so, in like manner, the rest of 
the Churches exhibit the names of men appointed to the 
Episcopate by Apostles, whom they possess as trans- 
mitters of the Apostolic seed." " So, now, you w^ho wish 
to exercise your curiosity to better profit in the matter 
of your salvation, run through the Apostolic Churches, 
where the very chairs of the Apostles still })reside in their 
own places — Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, 
Rome. Make it your business to inquire what they 
have learnt and taught ! " 

Nor had the Fathers any other thought of Bishops 
but as successors in the very Office and Order of the 

C. A.— 12 



178 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 

Apostles. " Irenseus," observes a learned commentator, 
"regards the Bishops in every Church as succeed- 
ing in an especial sense to the Apostles. They rep- 
resent in every place by Apostolic Succession the 
Catholic Faith; they have the 'gift of the truth' and 
the Apostolic authority of government; they are the 
guardians also no doubt of the grace by which Chris- 
tians live, of which as much as of the truth the Church 
is the 'rich treasury.'" And St. Jerome, A. d. 390, 
commenting on that saying of St. Paul, "Other Apos- 
tles saw I none save James the Lord's brother," says : 
"For by degrees, as time went on, others were ordained 
Apostles by those whom the Lord had chosen, as that 
passage to the Phihppians proves, saying: 'I supposed 
it necessary to send to you Epapliroditus, your Apos- 
tle.'" "The Bishops," observes Pacian, "are called 
Apostles, as Paul declareth in speaking of Epaphro- 
ditus." 

' So that as has been well said, " if the words of Holy 
Scripture be not altogether unmeaning and unsubstan- 
tial, if the Church of the Apostles be anything more 
than a phantom or a vision, if its first rulers, St. James 
and St. John, Clement and Epaphroditus, Ignatius and 
Poly carp, Avere really w^hat they seem to have been, 
what they claimed to be, and what they were admitted 
to be, then is it most certain that they, and all their 
successors after them, were, as universal Christen- 
dom believed, Bishops or Apostles in the Church of 
God." 

As the author makes no claim to being a Patristic 
scholar or an historical authority, a few quotations 
from the writings of those who ha ve been preeminently 
such will greatly strengthen his position, and so carry 
conviction to the rea der. Hooker : " Let us not fear to 
be herein bold and peremptory, that, if anything in the 



PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 179 

Church's government, surely the first institution of 
Bishops was from Heaven, was even of God : the Holy 
Ghost was the author of it." Bishop Bilson : " Of this 
[the Apostolical Succession] there is so perfect record, in 
all the stories and Fathers of the Church, that I must muse 
with what face men that have an}^ taste of learning, can 
denie the vocation of Bishops came from the Apostles; 
for that they succeeded the Apostles and Evangelists in 
their Churches and chaires may inevitably be proved, 
if any Christian persons or Churches deserve to be 
credited." Bishop Sanderson: "The Bishops are the 
lawful successors of the Apostles and inheritors of their 
powder." Archbishop BramhaH : " The line of Apostolic 
Succession is the very nerves and sinews of Ecclesiastical 
unity and communion both with the present Church, 
and with the Catholic symbolical Church of all suc- 
cessive ages." Bishop Taylor: " Episcopacy relies not 
upon the authority of the Fathers and Councils, but 
upion Scripture, upon the institution of Christ, or the 
institution of the Apostles, upon an universal tradition 
and an universal practice, not upon the words and 
opinions of the Doctors ; and it hath as great a testi- 
mony as Scripture itself hath." Archbishop Laud : 
"This I will say, and abide by it, that the calling of 
Bishops is jure divino, hy Divine right," Canon Liddon: 
"When we say that Bishops are successors of the 
Apostles we are not formulating a theory, but stating 
a fact of history." Bishop Moberly: " The historical 
fact of an Episcopal Succession, tracing back to the 
Apostles themselves, is undeniably established." And 
even John Calvin in writing to a friend who had recently 
been consecrated to the Episcopate, felt constrained to 
acknowledger "Thou hast been appointed a Bishop; 
with thee is present the authority of the Apostle 
Paul." 



180 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



Presbyteriaos, Lutherans, Methodists and some 
other bodies of Christians who are without the Historic 
Episcopate, claim that if there be any ministerial suc- 
cession coming down to us from New Testament times, 
it is through the order of Presbyters or elders, not that 
of the Apostles. They affirm that, after the death of St. 
John, the Church was governed by colleges of the Pres- 
bytery of which, when Christianity had been well estab- 
hshed, there was one in every large city. These had 
jurisdiction over adjacent villages and the surrounding 
country. Each of them had a Moderator or President 
who was elected from year to year. In the course of 
time reflections became almost the universal rule. As 
the Moderator-Presbyters were usually men of great 
force and influence and withal men of ambition, they 
soon, either by common consent or usurpation, set 
aside their brother Presbyters and assumed the author- 
ity and prerogatives of the Apostolate under the title of 
Bishops. 

In proof of all this they urge the probability that 
there was an early period of the Church's life when 
''Bishop" and "Presbyter" were convertible terms. 
And, it is, indeed, a curious and admitted fact that 
there is no special name absolutely restricted to the 
highest Order, on which all others depend, in the New 
Testament. "But," as Mr. Eagar observes, "whatso- 
ever may be the explanation, the Order of the Episco- 
pate shares this namelessness with even greater things. 
The second Sacrament has no absolutely distinctive 
Scriptural name; it may be referred to once as 'the 
Lord's Supper;' it is called ' Eucharistia,' but that word 
is employed also in other meanings ; our common name 
of 'Holy Communion' is not to be found in the Bible. 
The Doctrine of the Incarnation has to go outside 
Scripture for a name in which to sum up the revealed 



PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSOKS OF THE APOSTLES, 181 



truths, and we have to employ a word not found in 
Scripture Avhenever we speak of the Everlasting God as 
'the Trinity.' In all these matters, sensible persons 
have long ago learned that names count for very little 
and facts for a great deal; the same observation applies 
at least as forcibly to the question of the Episcopate." 
It is probable that in the case of some of the Churches 
founded by St. Paul, the chief Elder had the oversight 
of the flock during the Apostle's absence ; but there is 
no evidence that such overseers or Bishops had the 
power of ordaining, or that they were anything more 
than the Archpriests, or Archdeacons of later days. 
But the period of this Presbyterial overseership, if it 
existed at all, was so brief and confined to such narrow 
limits ; its history was so obscure, and the speedy emer- 
gence of the threefold order so universal, that nothing 
in regard to the permanent constitution of the Church 
can be built upon the fact of the identity for which our 
• brethren contend. A departure from the universal rule 
of centuries cannot be justified by a reference to the 
possible practice of one brief, transitional period of his- 
tory. If in the ApostoUc age Presbyters were some- 
times called Bishops, it was only because the highest 
Order of Church governors to which this title was after- 
wards reserved, were in the earliest ages generally called 
Apostles. "The Bishops," says St. Ambrose, "are 
Apostles;" and St. Cyprian: "The Lord appointed 
Apostles, that is. Bishops;" and St. Jerome, "Bishops 
occupy the place of Apostles;" and Pacian, "the Bish- 
ops are entitled Apostles ; " and Tertullian, "were first 
ordained by the Apostles;" and St. Irenaeus, "are 
traced in ah Churches from the Apostles;" and St. 
Augustine, " are instead of Apostles ; " and, in one word, 
all the Saints and all Martyrs, all Churches, and all 
times, declare the same truth— that Bishops are the 



182 OUR COXTEOYERST WITH DENOMIXATIONALISTS. 



Apostles of the Most High ; or that, in the words of 
Hooker: ''The first Bishops in the Church of Christ 
^\ere His blessed Apostles." 

Presbyterians are ever reminding us, also, of what St. 
Jerome says about the Church at Alexandria. It is, as 
they say, at least possible to conclude from his account 
that when the Patriarchal See fell yacant, it was filled 
by the election of a Presbyter who, hj this act, without 
Episcopal Consecration, became Bishop. To tliis we 
reply: (1) St. Jerome nowhere actuallj says that an 
Alexandrian clergyman who had receiyed Ordination 
to the Presbyterial office only, became Bishop simply 
because of his election to the Episcopate by brother 
Presbyters. (2) Eyen if at Alexandria the election was 
not followed by Consecration to the Episcopate, this 
departure from the general rule may be accounted for 
upon the hypothesis that some of the Parochial Clergy 
had been duly inyested with the Episcopal character by 
the laying on of hands. At a later period this is known 
to haye been the case at Eome, and it probably ac- 
counts for the fact that in the early British Church 
there were so mam' more Bishops than Dioceses. Of 
course these possible Bishops of Alexandria could not 
legally exercise the functions of the Episcopate until 
they had been canonically elected to a yacant See, but 
after such election they could, without further qualifica^ 
tion, ascend the Episcopal throne. 

As the late Prebendary Sadler, one of the most 
profound of modern Biblical students, in a tract 
on Church goyernment, says: "The idea of an 
Apostolically-ordained Presbyterian, or other such 
system, following upon the death of the Apostles 
and existing for any length of time, appears to me 
to be inyolyed in the greatest difficulties. It seems 
incredible that a Presbyterate appointed by Knox 



PEEPETrATED BY SrCCESSOES OF THE APOSTLES. 183 



and Melville, should have lasted three hundred years, 
whilst a supposed corresponding sj'stem, appointed 
by St. Paul himself, hopelessly collapsed in half a 
century." Elsewhere he sums up the case thus : (1 ) 
We have the Lord Himself personally appointing 
the Apostles and apparently assuring them that 
their ministry would last till the end of the world. 
(2) We have in the New Testament the history of 
the first thirty or forty years of the Church, during 
the whole of which period the one sole, supreme gov- 
ernment is the Apostolic, with the exception of the 
Church in one city. (3) This exception is the Mother 
Church of Christendom, which, if St. James be not an 
Apostle, is under Episcopal as distinguished from 
Apostolic rule. (4) We have the great Apostle of the 
Gentiles rulinp; the Churches committed to him with 
an hyper-Episcopal oversight, keeping apparently all 
power of every sort in his own hands. (5) We have the 
Apostle at the close of his career writing letters to the 
men through whose means he had exercised his Episco- 
pal control over Churches in all parts of the civilized 
world, in order to instruct them in the right use of the 
quasi- Apostolic powers he had made over to them. 
Then there is a gap of some seventy years at the most, 
and at the end of this period history presents us with 
the spectacle of the Christian Church everywhere offi- 
cered by men possessing the Governmental and Ordain- 
ing powers of the Apostolic delegates, though, as was to 
be expected, with more defined and localized spheres of 
action. And yet apparently for the one almost avowed 
purpose of interposing some break, and proving a dis- 
connection between the Apostolic and any later minis- 
try, we are asked to assume the existence of some inter- 
mediate Presbyterian or Congregational system, of the 
constitution of which history has not preserved to us 



184 OUK COXTROYERSY WITH DEXOMIXATIOXALISTS. 



one fragment, and which, if estabUshed, must have been 
established without an^^ principles of permanency im- 
pressed upon it, so that, according to tne confession of 
those who conjecture it, its very memory had perished 
out of the mind of the Church within a hundred years 
after its appointment." 

The obscure but short period between the last of the 
Apostolic and the first of the post-Apostolic writers, 
during which, according to the representations of De- 
nominationalists, the Church was governed by a Board 
of Presbj^ters, has been compared to a tunnel. We 
have good light where we have the books of the New 
Testament to guide us, and again when we come down 
to the abundant literary remains of the latter part of 
the second century; but there is an intervening period, 
here and there faintly illumined by a few documents 
giving such scanty and interrupted light as may be af- 
forded by the air-holes of a tunnel. If in our study of 
the dimly-lighted portion of the history we wish to dis- 
tinguish what is certain from what is doubtful, we may 
expect to find the things certain in what can be seen 
from either of the two well-lighted ends. If the same 
thing is visible on looking from either end, we can have 
no doubt of its existence. Beyond question the Church, 
before entering the tunnel, was governed by Apostles 
and when it came out, by Bishops, claiming to be 
successors of the Apostles. 

We shall conclude this division of our subject with a 
famous passage from Chillingworth's crushing answer 
to the representations of Presbyterians: "When 1 shall 
see all the fables in the 'Metamorphoses' acted and 
proved true stories ; when I shall see all the democracies 
and aristocracies in the world lie down to sleep, and 
awake into monarchies, then I will begin to believe that 
Presbyterial government, having continued in the 



PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 185 

Church during the Apostles' times, should presently after, 
against the Apostles' Doctrine and the will of Christ, be 
wheeled about like a scene in a mask and transformed 
into Episcopacy. In the meantime, while these things 
are thus incredible and in human reason impossible, I 
hope I shall have leave to conclude thus: Episcopal 
government was universally received in the Church 
presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apos- 
tles and this presently after, there was not time enough 
for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration; and, 
therefore, there was not such alteration as is pre- 
tended. And, therefore, Episcopacy being so ancient 
and Cathohc, must be granted also to be Apostolic." 

In reference to the necessity of Bishops to the exist- 
ence of the Church, it may be said that, since they are 
the successors of the Apostles, it follows as a matter of 
course that, as there could have been no Church in the 
Apostolic days without the headship of "the eleven" 
and those whom they made partakers with themselves 
in the Apostolate, so, after their time, there could be 
none without a Bishop. We see from the Acts that the 
first disciples "continued steadfastly' in the Apostles' 
doctrine and fellowship." This was, in the nature of 
things, a necessary condition of membership in Christ's 
Apostolic Church. As Bishops of the uninterrupted and 
Canonical succession are nothing less than Apostles, it 
is, in the nineteenth century as in the first, obligatory 
upon all professing Christians to be in communion with 
one of them. At any rate this view prevailed down 
through the ages until the Reformation. 

St. Ignatius, a. d. 107, writes: "Where the Bishop 
appears, there let the people be, as where is Christ Jesus, 
there is the Catholic Church," "The Bishop is the 



186 OUR COIS^TEOVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



center of each individual Church, as Jesus Christ is the 
center of the universal Church." "He who does any- 
thing apart from the Bishop, and the Presbyter}^, and 
Deacons is not pure in his conscience." "For as many 
as are of God and of Jesus Christ, they are with the 
Bishop." Elsewhere the sameFather says : "Do your dili- 
gence, therefore, that ye be confirmed in the ordinances 
of the Lord and of the Apostles, that ye may prosper in 
all things whatsoever ye do in flesh and spirit in the 
Son and Father and in the Spirit, with your revered 
Bishop, and Avith the fitly wreathed spiritual circlet of 
your Presbyter}^, and with the Deacons who walk after 
God. Be obedient to the Bishop and to one another, 
as Jesus Christ was to the Father, according to the flesh, 
and as the Apostles were to- Christ and to the Father, 
that there may be union both of flesh and of spirit." 

Irenseus, a. d. 180, gave laconic expression to the 
conviction which universall}^ prevailed during the first 
fifteen hundred years of Christianity, when he said: "No 
Church without a Bishop." 

The blessed Athanasius, A. d. 350, writing to one 
who had fled from the duties of the Episcopal office, for 
fear of persecution, says, "How wouldst thou have be- 
come a Christian, if there had been no Bishops?" And 
then he proceeds to assert, in the uniform language of 
the primitive Saints, from the Martyrs Ignatius and 
Irenaius down to Basil and Ambrose, that the Church 
is in such sort built upon the Bishops — that is, the 
Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ— that the one cannot 
even be contemplated as distinct from the other; a 
Church without Bishops being, in the judgment of these 
ancients, not " defective," or "imperfect" merely, but, 
as they speak, "no Church at all." 

Speaking of the necessity of Bishops to the existence 
of the Church, the author of " Notes on the Catholic 



PERPETUATED BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. 187 

Episcopate, "'says : " So constant was this belief among 
all lands wheresoever the Gospel had been preached, 
that even those misbelievers who fled out of the ark of 
the Church, and formed to themselves conventicles 
apart, never dreamed of setting up any purer or more 
primitive — nay, or any other — form of government 
than this, but perpetuated their errors by a succession 
of Pseudo-Bishops. And, when certain women, 'led 
away with divers lusts,' and seeking to annul even the 
distinction between the sexes, ventured to usurp the 
office of teachers, and to frame a new company of be- 
Mevers, it was by imitating the only order which they 
had ever heard of, and appointing from their own ranks 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, that they attempted to 
execute their impious plan." 

So far as Holy Scripture is concerned, one passage 
only has been quoted as leaving an opening for other 
than an Episcopally ordained ministry in the Church 
of Christ. " Forbid him not," said our Lord of the man 
who cast out devils in His name, while not following 
the Apostles. But an injunction not to forbid work 
does not necessarily impl}' its orderliness, or even legal- 
ity ; and what is there, save a very doubtful analogy, 
to connect this man's actions with the work of the min- 
istry ? We should not be at all willing to forbid the work 
of, say, "The Young Men's Christian Association," or 
to deny that it is "on Christ's part." But we should be 
greatly surprised if this were construed into a recogni- 
tion of any claim.s that its worthy secretaries might 
put forth to be a branch of the Christian ministry. It 
is quite certain, at any rate, that neither in the New 
Testament, nor in Church History, is there any trace of 
the followers of this man, or of any like him, as a sep- 
arate body of Christians. So that one of two things 
must have happened — either his work absolutely died 



188 OUK CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



out, or he found that very work a means of drawing 
him into the fellowship of the Apostles. 

III. 

THE APPOINTED ARK OF SALVATION. 

THE Church of Christ which has been perpetuated 
through the Historic Episcopate.is the appointed 
ark of Gospel Salvation, and only by entering it 
can a person place himself in assured covenant relation- 
ship with God. Passing by for the present the difficulties 
which this statement will suggest to the minds of non- 
Episcopalian readers, let us first see what reasonably 
may be inferred from the Scriptures and what light the 
writings of the Fathers and Doctors throw upon the 
subject. 

It must be evident to every attentive reader of .the 
Bible that it divides the human race into two great 
classes — those who are in covenant relationship with 
God, and those who are without the pale of his cove- 
nanted mercies. A religious covenant is an agreement 
which God condescends to enter into with man. Be- 
tween man and man there are, speaking broadly, two 
kinds of agreements— the commercial and the beneficent. 
The former has in view mutual profit, but the latter is 
of no benefit to the contracting party who takes the 
initiative except the satisfaction he experiences in the 
effort to bless. Where a covenant between God and 
man exists it is of course so far as He is concerned one 
of grace. 

The importance of entering into such relationship 
with God may be inferred from the fact that the Creator 
Himself proposes it . He certainly would not do so, if it 
were a trifling matter. Our falling in with this proposal 
must, therefore, contribute to our highest eternal welfare 



THE APPOINTED ARK OF SALTATION. 



189 



and to the great glory of God. The same may be in- 
ferred even more clearly from the fact that both the 
Jewish and Christian Scriptures are called Testaments, 
a word which in Holy AVrit is synonymous with cove- 
nant ; indeed the titles of Old and New Testaments arose 
from an inaccurate rendering in the Latin Yulgate of 
the word meaning covenant by test amentum. It would 
be a decided gain if the correct titles could be used. In 
the Revised Version of the New Testament the word 
" covenant " is almost without exception the translation. 

Now the title of a book or of a collection of writings 
is drawn from the chief subject, treated of. The fact that 
the Bible is divided into Old and New Covenants is 
therefore very instructive. It shows that God not only 
proposes to enter into covenant relationship with us, 
but that He makes it the principal topic of His Revela- 
tion, which He would not do if it were not supremely 
important. The Church is the ark of Salvation because 
only by entering it and by remaining in it, can a person 
be in covenant relationship with God. That under the 
Old Dispensation none could estabhsh this relationship 
except by membership in the Jewish Church is, in the 
light of the Law and the Prophets, so manifest that I 
presume it will not be questioned by any; and since 
membership in the Church of God was so necessary in 
the Old Dispensation, all will admit that we ought not 
to conclude without the best of reasons that it is any 
less so in the New\ There is, however, no ground for 
such a conclusion. On the contrary, all the facts point 
in the other direction. God does not change; the con- 
dition and needs of mankind haA^e remained the same; 
and Christ expressly declares that He came not to 
destroy, but to fulfill the Old Covenant Scriptures. 
These considerations, though falling short of a positive 
proof that the Church occupies as important a place in 



190 OUR COXTROYERSY WITH DEXOMIX^ ATIONALlSTS. 



the present Dispensation as in the preceding, render it 
at least highly improbable that the assertion to the 
contrary is true. 

But that which we have seen to be antecedently 
probable must be apparent, it would seem, to all who 
have the least familiarity with the Gospels and Epis- 
tles. These when taken as a whole, and especially when 
interpreted in the hght of the writings of the Fathers 
who lived nearest the time of the Apostles, leave no 
room for reasonable doubt that he who would be in 
covenant relationship with God and thus make sure 
that he is an 'inheritor of Gospel Salvation, must be a 
member of the Apostolic Church. Those who think 
that they have made their calling and election sure 
because they have been converted and are in the enjoy- 
ment of experimental religion, that is, have, as they 
say, the witness of the Spirit that they are saved, will 
find it difficult to explain satisfactorily m.any of the 
most striking j^assages of the Xew Testament. 

Why, for example, did our Lord in His commission 
to the Apostles connect Baptism with the preaching of 
the Gospel and the teaching of obedience? Why was 
Baptism administered to the three thousand upon 
whom, on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost fell? 
Or why to St. Paul who, upon the occasion of his mirac- 
ulous conversion, was smitten to the ground and made 
blind by the heavenly hght? Or to Cornelius who had 
the assurance of an angel that he was accepted of God ? 
These and mam^ similar questions cannot be answered 
by those who attach Kttle or no importance to the Ec- 
clesiastical side of the Gospel. The theory that salva- 
tion is offered upon the condition of conversion, is one 
of those half truths which leave a large part of the Xew 
Testament unexplained and inexplicable. In the Chris- 
tian Dispensation as in the Jewish there can be no 



THE APPOIXTED ARK OF SALVATION, 



191 



assurance of salvation outside of the covenant relation- 
ship, and this cannot be entered now auy more than it 
could then by faith and conversion alone, but with these 
through the door of membership in the Church which 
has come down tons from Christ through Bishops of the 
Apostolic Succession. Nevertheless baptized Denomi- 
nationalists as well as Greek, Roman, and Anglican 
Catholics are regarded as members of this Church, 
because Baptism may be valid although not regular. 
To many this will look as if we exalted the Church at the 
expense of w^hat they call "vital religion." But faith, 
conversion, and other Evangelical doctrines are not 
really undervalued in the Episcopal Church. It is not 
that we make less of these doctrines but more of the 
Church than Denominationahsts do. We think that the 
Scriptures justify us in this; and to verify the correctness 
of our interpretation of them to this effect, we appeal to 
the writings of those who lived nearest to the time of the 
Apostles. Do they teach that only members of the Apos- 
tolic Church are in covenant relationship with God ? 

Ignatius, of Antioch, A. d. 107, as w^e have just 
seen, says: "Where the Bishop appears, there let the 
people be, as where is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic 
Church." Again, "He w'ho is within the Sanctuary is 
pure; he who is outside is impure, that is to say, he 
w^ho does anything apart from Bishop and Presbytery 
and Deacons, is not pure in his conscience." "If anyone 
follows a separatist, he does not inherit the Kingdom 
of God." So also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lj^ons, a. d. 180, 
who represents the Churches of Gaul and Asia, where he 
had been brought up: "In the Church God placed 
Apostles, Prophets, Doctors, and the w^hole operation of 
the Spirit, and all w^ho do not have recourse to the 
Church do not participate in Him, but deprive them- 
selves of life. For where the Church is, there is the 



192 OUE COXTEOVEESY WITH DEX03IIXATI0XALISTS. 

Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there 
is the Church and all grace." " God will judge all those 
who make schisms. No reformation can be wrought 
by them, which can compensate for the injury of the 
schism. God will judge all those who are outside the 
Church." And Cyprian, of Africa, a. d. 250: ''Who- 
soever shall be found without the Church, will be cut off 
from the number of sons. He will not have God for his 
Father, who refused to have the Church for his Mother." 
"To separate from the Church is to deny that Christ 
came in the flesh ; because it is to scatter that which He 
gathered together in one. This is to be xlntichrist ! " 
"If a separatist should lay down his life for the name of 
Christ, he would die unblest." " The House of God is 
one, and no man can have salvation except in the 
Church." He also speaks, as did some copies of the 
earlier Baptismal Creeds, of "remission of sins, and 
eternal life through the Church." Origen, a. d. 230, 
says, "Outside this House, that is to say, outside the 
Church, no one has salvation." 

This language, astounding as it must be to modern 
Denominationalists, is not as strong as that used by 
the renowned Augustine, a. d. 398. He spoke as fol- 
lows of a class of sectaries, who, as respects their doc- 
trinal teaching, were certainly orthodox: "I do not 
assert that if a Donatist should profess to have suf- 
fered any injuries in the cause of his party, or to have 
endured temporal losses, it would profit him' nothing; I 
say more. I say, that if he should suffer without the 
pale of the Church, it will be as the enemy of Christ ; and 
if one of Christ's enemies should say to him, being with- 
out the Church, 'Offer sacrifice to our idols, worship 
our gods,' and he, through refusing to ATorship, should 
be slain by the enemy of Christ, his blood he may pour 
out, a crown he cannot receive." "The Holy mountain 



THE APPOINTED ARK OF SALTATION. 



193 



of God. " lie says elsewhere, " is His Holy Church. Those 
who are not in communion with her will not attain 
to everlasting life.'' And still more pointedly, "Christ 
is the head and Saviour of His Body. Outside this 
Body the Holy Spirit gives life to none." Jerome, 
A. D. 390: "As from Adam and his wife the whole 
race of men have sprung, so of Christ and His Church 
the whole multitude of belicA^ers are begotten.'' He 
also compares the Church to the Ark. "What the 
Ark was in the Deluge, that the Church . is in the 
world."' 

" Clement, a. d. 194, and 0rigen, a. d. 230,'" says 
Canon Gore, " alike endeavored to mitigate this doc- 
trine of exclusive salvation within the Church, so as to 
bring it into harmony with God's universal purposes, 
with his recognized equity and good-will towards all, 
and with the universal presence of the Word to all men. 
But with all this it is an undoubted truth that they did, 
like all the other Fathers, regard God's covenant in 
Christ as made with a visible society, membership in 
which was of universal obligation, and alienation from 
which was death." 

"It is sometimes argued," observes the same pro- 
found author, " that St. Paul could not have believed in 
Salvation through the Church, because this contradicts 
his doctrine of the justifying effect of individual faith. 
But in fact there is no such contradiction. The Chris- 
tian life is a correspondence between the grace commu- 
nicated from Avithout and the inward faith which, 
justifying us before God. opens out the avenues of com- 
munication between man and God, and enables man to 
appropriate and to use the grace wdiich he receives in 
Christ. There is thus no antagonism, though there is a 
distinction between grace and faith. Xow, grace comes 
to Christians through social Sacraments, as members 

C.A.— 13 



194 OUR COXTROYERSY WITH DEXOMINATIOXALISTS. 

of one 'spirit-bearing body.' 'By one Spirit we are 
all baptized into one body;' 'we being many are one 
bread and one bod}', for we are all partakers of that one 
bread.' Thus the doctrine of the Church as the house- 
hold of grace is the complement, not the contradic- 
tion of the doctrine of faith. Faith is no faith if it 
isolates a man from the fellowship of the one body, and 
the one body has no salvation except for the sons of 
faith." 

The Patristic doctrine of salyation only in the 
Church, harsh as it now sounds to Denominationalists, 
is no other than that held by their spiritual ancestors. 
The Presbyterian Westminster Confession put forth in 
A. D. 1647 speaks of the visible Church as "the house 
and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary 
possibihty of salvation." 

lY. 

THE DEPOSITORY OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 

" He, Ransomer from death, and Light from shade, 
Now gives His holy grace, His Saints to aid. 
Approach ye then with faithful heart sincere, 
And take the safeguard of salvation here." 

Not only is it necessary to enter the Apostolic Church 
in order to establish covenant relationship with God, 
but also because she is the depository of Sacramental 
grace of which her Mioisters are the sole authorized 
dispensers. The subjective blessings of valid Sacra- 
ments, that is, of Sacraments administered by Ministers 
of Apostolic authority, may come to those who receive 
them at the hands of an unauthorized ministry : but 
the benefits of Baptism, Confirmation and the Lord's 
Supper are not wholly of a subjective character any 



THE DEPOSITORY OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 195 

more than are the benefits of prayer. To those who 
ask in faith and in accordance with the will of God, 
prayer, besides giving right direction to inward dispo- 
sitions, secures to the petitioner spiritual and temporal 
blessings. In like manner valid Sacraments when re- 
ceived in faith and repentance assure the recipient that 
he is a child of God and an heir and joint heir with 
Christ to the life which now is and to that which is to 
come. Nor is this all. Such Sacraments also remit sins 
and convey strength to live a life of righteousness. 

I am not saying that the Sacraments of non-Episco- 
palians do not convey these blessings, but that there is 
no assurance that they do ; indeed their ministers do 
not claim to administer Sacramental grace. On the 
contrary they maintain that the benefits of the Sac- 
raments are purely subjective, and condemn as Romish 
superstition and error the doctrine which has been 
taught in every branch of the Catholic Church from the 
beginning; namely, that the Sacraments are channels 
of grace. If it be true that the Roman Church teaches 
that they work by magic or charm to save their 
recipients, she is in so far clearly unscriptural. ^ Repent- 
ance and faith are alway spoken of, or implied, in 
connection with the administration of Holy Baptism, 
and, in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. 
John, in which eternal life and the resurrection are 
plainly made dependent upon the Sacramental eating 
and drinking of Christ's body and blood, faith and 
coming to Christ are also connected with the resurrec- 
tion and life everlasting. 

As in many other particulars, so in respect to her 
doctrine of the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments of 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, it will be discovered 
upon examination, that the Anglo-Catholic Church of 
which the Protestant Episcopal Church is a branch, 



196 OIJR CONTROVEESY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



occupies the middle gTound between the Roman Cathohc 
Church and the various Protestant bodies of Christians. 
This position is due to the fact that at the Reforma- 
tion the Mother Church of England, from which the 
American daughter has not departed in any essential 
of doctrine or ceremony, returned to the ground that 
she had occupied in the earliest and purest ages, while 
the Roman Church continued in her Mediaeval de- 
partures, and the sixteenth century and later Denomi- 
nations have gone off quite as far in the opposite 
direction. 

Anglo-Catholics connect salvation with the Sacra- 
ments and with faith and repentance. All that is 
Scriptural and essential in the Roman and Protestant 
views of the efficacy of the Sacraments, we hold. For 
with the one we agree that, "the Sacraments are gen- 
erally necessary to salvation and that they work invis- 
ibly in us and do not only quicken, but also strengthen 
and confirm our faith in Christ; " and with the other we 
hold that the Sacraments "have a wholesome effect 
and operation in such, only, as worthily receive the 
same by a death unto sin, and a new birth unto right- 
eousness, by repenting themselves truly of their former 
sins, by having a lively faith in God's mercy through 
Christ with a thankful remembrance of His death, and 
by being in charity with all men." 

In all ages there have been many who have depreci- 
ated the importance of external rites and ceremonies. 
This is the tendency of a large element even in the An- 
glican Communion, and it is so in all the Protestant 
bodies about us. Surely those who are inclined to 
under-estimatethe Sacraments have not well considered 
the fact that thej' were instituted b}^ Christ Himself at a 
time when the evil of externalism was at its height 
in the Jewish Church. He was familiar with this evil, 



THE DEPOSITOEY OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 197 



and often inveiglied against it, and yet He made the 
very existence and continuance of His Kingdom to de- 
pend upon external observances. This is nnacconntable 
unless we infer, as under the circumstances \Ye must, 
that there is an intimate and vital connection bet\Yeen 
divinely instituted externalism and deep piety and gen- 
uine spirituality. And that there is such a connection 
is further indicated by the constant practice of the 
Apostolic and primitive Church. The Apostles, them- 
selves, and those next to them, who lived nearest to the 
time of the great Head of the Church, and consequently 
knew most about His teachi^ng, unquestionably re- 
garded the external rites of Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper as inseparably connected with salvation. We are 
willing to grant that they made as much of repentance 
and faith as a modern Methodist, but while admitting 
this we must insist that the Apostles, Fathers and Doc- 
tors attached as much importance to Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper as the ancient Jews did to Circumcision 
and the Passover. The proof of this is abundant in 
nearly every chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and 
on almost every page of the Fathers. All who would be 
saved were urged to be baptized without delay, and the 
early Christians seldom, if ever, met without celebrating 
the Holy Communion. Some of us might make more 
of certain doctrines which Denominationahsts magnify, 
but none can esteem and use valid Sacraments less 
without diminishing the aids to holy living. 

Before the Ascension it was Christ only, and after- 
wards the Apostles, or those whom they commissioned, 
who dispensed the Bread of Life in the Lord's Supper. 
It was as necessary to receive this Heavenly food at 
their hands as to continue in their doctrine and fellow- 
ship and the appointed worship. "We read of the three 
thousand, who believed and were added to the Church 



198 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



by Baptism, that "They continued steadfastly in the 
Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking 
of bread and in the prayers." The only way in which 
Christians of later days can imitate the example of the 
first Disciples is by adhering to the Bishop of the Apos- 
tolic Succession who has been canonically placed over 
them. At least so taught the Fathers. 

"Let no man," wrote the Apostolic Ignatius when 
on his way to martyrdom, a. d. 107, "let no man be 
deceived. If anyone be not within the precinct of the 
Altar, he lacketh the bread of God . For, if the prayer of 
one and another hath so great force, how much more 
that of the Bishop and of the whole Church." "Let 
us, therefore, be careful not to resist the Bishop, that by 
our submission we may give ourselves to God. And in 
proportion as a man seeth that his Bishop is silent, let 
him fear him the more. For everyone whom the Mas- 
ter of the household sendeth to be His steward over 
His own house, we ought so to receive as Him that 
sent him. Plainly, therefore, we ought to regard the 
Bishop as the Lord Himself." "For as many as are 
of God and of Jesus Christ, they are with the Bishop; 
and as many as shall repent and enter into the unity 
of the Church, these also shall be of God. Be not 
deceived, my brethren, if any man folio weth one that 
maketh a schism, he doth not inherit the Kingdom of 
God. If any man walketh in strange doctrine, he hath 
no fellowship with the passion." " Be ye careful, there- 
fore, to observe one Eucharist [that is, the Holy Com- 
munion], for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ 
and one Cup unto union in His blood; there is one 
Altar, as there is one Bishop, together with the Pres- 
bytery and the Deacons, my fellow-servants." Let no 
man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart 
from the Bishop, Let that be held a valid Eucharist 



THE DEPOSITORY OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE. 



199 



which is under the Bishop or one to whom he shall 
have committed it. Wheresoever the Bishop shall ap- 
pear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may 
be, there is the Universal Church. It is not lawful apart 
from the Bishop either to baptize or to hold a love- 
feast ; but whatever he shall approve, this is well- 
pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do 
may be sure and valid." 

"Athanasius," says Canon Gore, "endeavors to recall 
a Bishop who in time of persecution had been guilty of 
fleeing from his duty, in part by reminding him of 
monks who have made good Bishops, but principally 
by recaUing to his mind the dignity of the Episcopate, 
as instituted by Christ through His Apostles and hav- 
ing, therefore, not merely the authority of the Church 
but the authority of Christ Himself, and as being the 
essential condition of the continuous Ufe of the Church 
and the handing down of grace." 

y. 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

THIS Lecture would be incomplete without some 
reply to the principal objections which, judging 
from my own experience, must inevitably have 
presented themselves to the Denominational reader. 
He will, of course, perceive, as I did, that such arguments 
tend to unchurch the non-Episcopal bodies ; to make it 
an imperative duty to go out from them, and to enter 
some undoubted branch of the Catholic Church; to 
invaUdate the ministry and sacraments of non-Episco- 
pahans, and to limit covenanted salvation to the his- 
toric Catholic Church. All this, it will be said, is unmit- 
igated and intolerable bigotry. In a generation, which, 



200 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATION ALISTS. 



like ours, glories in its creedless liberality, this appar- 
ently well-founded accusation will settle the whole mat- 
ter in the minds of the great majority, who have been 
led on by curiosity to follow me thus far. 

A long experience in a position which has brought 
me in contact with great numbers of non-Episcopalians, 
does not encourage the hope that there is anything to 
be said which will prevent most of us from parting com- 
pany at the end of this lecture. Nevertheless, Episco- 
palians, as might be expected, have their ready answer 
to these, as to all other objections, that are urged 
against their Church, which, in each and every case, is 
so far satisfactory as to clear the way for the continu- 
ous procession of intelligent Denominationalists, who 
are coming into the Episcopal Church at the rate of 
about twenty thousand annually. Though this is a 
great host, all who have completed their Churchward 
journey believe that it would be far greater, if inherited 
prejudice and the popular cry against illiberality did 
not deter many from investigating the claims of the 
Church. Nine out of every ten who hear and read 
enough really to understand these claims, sooner or 
later identify themselves with us. The truth of this 
statement will be established in other connections. 

1. The propositions which we have been considering 
are objected to, because, if followed to their logical con- 
clusion, they unchurch the various non-Episcopal bod- 
ies of Christians. The edge of this objection will be 
blunted by the explanation that, though w^e do not rec- 
ognize a society which was organized by a human 
agency only three hundred years ago, more or less, as a 
branch of the Divine Institution of which we read in the 
New Testament, yet we do admit that all its members, 
who have been duly baptized with water in the Name of 
the Father and of the Son and of the Holv Ghost, are 



OBJECTIONS AXSWEEED. 



201 



members of the " One, Holy. Catholic Church of Christ," 
as really as ourselves. The difference between them and 
us is, that they are living in schism while we are not. 
Nevertheless, by reason of their Baptism, they are Chris- 
tians. 

If I mistake not there are several of the Denomina- 
tions whose representatives, if true to the couAuctions 
which prevail among them, could not say as much of 
Episcopalians. Consistency would require them to call 
our Christianity in question, because we are not united 
to Christ by a particular form of Baptism or by some 
special kind of faith and experience. At any rate it 
cannot truthfully be said that any of the leading and 
so-called orthodox Denominations are more liberal than 
we are in the cordial recognition of Christian brethren 
who are outside of our respective communions. Thus, if 
we unchurch the Denominations we do not unchristianize 
their members. According to our understanding, their 
case is very much like that of those who belonged to 
the great revolt effected by Jeroboam. " The ten tribes 
did not cease to be Hebrews. They were still brought 
by circumcision into covenant with God ; they are still 
addressed as His chosen people. Their Priests are never 
recognized as the Priests of God ; their ministrations are 
alway^s stigmatized as illegitimate ; but the people, be- 
ing Israelites and being circumcised, are still accounted 
the elect or chosen people of God. are always recognized 
as belonging to the one body. Wide as was the breach 
\Yhich Jeroboam made, it did not split the -common- 
wealth of Israel" into tAvo. He sinned grievously him- 
self, and he 'made Israel to sin'— in fact, it is beyond 
all doubt that separation in that age Avas wholly sinful. 
But. notAvithstanding the schism, the Jewish Church re- 
mained one. Not even Jeroboam, the great heresiarch, 
who carried live-sixths of the congregation of Israel 



202 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



along with him— Jeroboam, whom God appointed to 
rule over the ten tribes— could found a new Church or 
people of God." 

It has been asked, '' But, how do you account for the 
blessing which has attended the labors of the various 
Denominations, if thej^are not true Churches of Christ?" 
In the same way that we account for the successes of 
the Young Men's Christian Association or of the Salva- 
tion Arm}'. God's abounding grace constantly over- 
flows its channels. God forbid that we should deny for 
a moment the good and holy work done for Him by the 
Denominations. Why should we? It is the work of our 
fellow-Christians, and it is because they are Christians 
by Baptism, and not because the societies to which 
they belong are Churches, that God has blessed their 
preaching and endeavors. 

Denominationalists usuall,y justify their separation 
from the Historic Church of our race upon the ground 
that they were "kicked out." In proof of this they 
mention the fact that a large number of self-constituted 
ministers, who had been intruded into English benefices 
in the Kevolutionary period, were ejected upon the 
restoration of the monarchy, and that many of the 
Church of England pulpits were closed against John 
and Charles Wesley. We answer that even if such ejec- 
tions and exclusions could be shown to have been 
wholly unjust and reprehensible, they afford no excuse 
for the sin of schism. Two wrongs do not make one 
right. Even, though, for the sake of argument, it be 
conceded that the Independents and Methodists met 
with unjust and harsh treatment, yet it cannot be ad- 
mitted that they were compelled to leave the Church; 
for many of the leaders of both movements remained in 
the Church all their days, and died in her communion. 
Besides, there is really no such thing as " kicking" peo- 



OB.rECTIOXS AXSWEEED, 



203 



pie out of the Catliolic Church. Thev cau be made to 
endure wrong and cruel persecution, but they cannot 
be cut off fro^m the Body of Christ oi Axhich they were 
made members at Holy Baptism. Not even excommu- 
nication will do this. It may prevent participation in 
the benefits of the means of grace. But. those, who at 
various times since the middle of the sixteenth century, 
have left the Enghsh and American Episcopal Churches, 
were not even exc-ommunicated. They went out of their 
own accord. If we look at the matter from the stand- 
point of Denominationahsts, the most charitable ex- 
planation oi their conduct is that they were unwilling 
to suffer wrongfully for the sake of Christ. In this respect 
the foUowers of John Wesley, if the representations 
respecting the persecutions which he endured are true, 
did not imitate his example, for, according to many 
accounts that we have seen, he could not be '-kicked 
out." There is, however, room for doubt whether cre- 
dence should be given to all that has been pubhshed on 
this subject. Mr. Wesley, himself, never accused the 
Church of casting him out— least of aU in his last days— 
when, he tells us. he had ••'more invitations to preach 
in Churches than he could accept of ' when many of the 
Clergy were ••prejudiced in favor of the Methodists:" 
when, as his biographer Tyermansays, " he was invited in 
all parts of the country by Rectors, Yicars, Curates, and 
others to favor them with his services. An eminent 
Methodist in a " Contemporary Review " article, has tes- 
tified that , on the whole, the Bishops treated Wesley bet- 
ter than he could have expected. '"So persistent were 
Wesley's irregularities that it has always seemed to me 
that great indulgence on the part of the Bishops was 
exercised, or he would have been, in every Diocese, in- 
hibited with vigor."" Those who read history through 
Anglican spectacles vdll continue to attribute our 



OVE COXTEOTEEST WITH DEXOillXATIOXALISTS, 



unfortunate divisions to the Puritanical Pharisaism and 
willfulness of the first Separatists. No reflection is here 
intended upon their descendants. Denominationalists 
can no more be held responsible for the sins of their 
ancestors, except in so far as they knowinoiT and dehb- 
erately continue in them, than Episcopahans can be for 
those of the "'-'fox hunting parson."' 

Moreover, we must not allow our objectors to forget 
that, if we unchurch their recently organized voluntary 
societies, because they have no historic connection with 
Christ through an Apostohc and Canonical succession 
■ of Bishops, we are simply following the example of their 
ancestors who unchurched us, not only because they in- 
sisted that the Presbytery was the only Divinely insti- 
tuted form of Church government, but also because thev 
maintained that the whole Episcopal estabhshment 
was so utterly corrupt that it was not any part of the 
Church of Christ, but rather the synagogue of Satan, 
Heyhn, who wrote his standard History of Puritanism 
and Life of Archbishop Laud about the time of the 
Cromwellian Revolution, thus summarizf^s the language 
used by the enemies of the Church in the innumerable 
pamphlets which in his day were scattered broadcast. 
"They could find no other title for the Archbishop than 
Beelzebub of Canterbury, the Pope of Lambeth, the 
Canterbury Caiaphas, Esau, a monstrous Antichrist, a 
most bloody opposer of God's Saints, a very anti- 
christian beast, most bloody tyrant. The Bishops are 
described as unlawful, unnatural, false and bastardly 
governors of the Church, the ordinances of the devil, 
petty Popes, petty Antichrists, incarnate devils, cog- 
ging,cozening knaves, who lie like dogs, and so on. " 

When we were thus not only unchurched but also 
reviled, instead of retorting in kind upon the calum- 
niators of the Church, Hooker, Andrews. Thorndike, 



OBJECTIOXS AXSWEKED. 



205 



Taylor, Laud and a host of others calmly proved 
by ^Yorks that have never been answered that Episco- 
- pacy is an essential part of the Church's constitution 
and that, notwithstanding the sins of omission and 
commission of which many of her representatives in 
high places were guilty, the Church of England is a true 
branch of the Church of Christ. Nor were our scholars 
and Saints content with writing unanswerable controver- 
sial works. They frankly confessed our short-comings 
and preached the necessity of reformation with afidehty 
and vigor that resulted in the purifying of the body 
Ecclesiastical and in making her confessedly the great- 
est educational, missionary, and benevolent agency 
that the world has ever known. 

Our Methodist brethren who seem to be the most 
deeply offended at our alleged uncharitableness towards 
other Christian bodies and have so much to say about 
it, may be reminded that after all we simply occupy the 
ground that John Wesley took in regard to all Separat- 
ists from the Historic Church. He never looked upon 
the association of which he was the head as anything 
more than a society within the Church. Nor would he 
listen to any suggestion of separation, but warned his 
followers against it and prevented it so long as he lived. 
Dr. Beet, who is perhaps the greatest living scholar 
among English Methodists, says: "Wesley had no 
thought of founding a community outside the Anglican 
Church, and strongly urged his followers to remain in 
the ancient fold." As is well known John and Charles 
Wesley both died Priests and communicants of the 
Church in good standing. 

2. Again, it is objected that the propositions which 
we have been maintaining, logically lead to the conclu- 
sion that it is the duty of non-Episcopahans to leave 
their respective societies and to identify themselves with 



206 OUK CONTEOVEESY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 

some undoubted branch of the Divinely instituted 
Church. What we really intend to teach is at least ca- 
pable of statement in the following less objectionable 
form :— It is the duty of all Christians and of those who 
would become such, to examine the relative claims of 
the various religious bodies to their allegiance. Other 
things being equal, we feel sure that Americans who 
have any regard for antiquity and for the predominat- 
ing judgment of Christendom, will feel obliged to ally 
themselves with some branch of Episcopacy which has 
come down from the Apostles rather than with any of the 
various forms of a self-constituted ministry as found in 
Denominationalism. Until the Keformation practically 
the whole of Christendom believed the "Historic Episco- 
pate" to be an essential characteristic of the Church 
founded by Christ, and even now the vast majority of 
Christians hold to this view. If the teaching or practice 
of the early Church on any point is unanimous, or nearly 
so, then it is not safe to draw conclusions contrary to 
it except upon unmistakable evidences of error. '' AVe 
require you to find out but one Church upon the face of 
the whole earth, that hath been ordered by your disci- 
phne, or hath not been ordered by ours, that is to say, 
by Episcopal regiment, since the time that the blessed 
Apostles were conversant." This is the famous chal- 
lenge of Hooker, who wrote at the close of the sixteenth 
century against the Presb.yterians. It has never yet 
been met. Until non-Episcopalians can meet it, they 
cannot reasonably object to the logic which makes it 
their duty to be in communion with the canonical Bishop 
of the region in which they live. 

3. It is also objected that the line of argument pur- 
sued in this lecture invalidates the Ministry and Sacra- 
ments of Denominationalists, that is, makes them of no 
effect. If we have said or imphed anything of this kind, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED. 



207 



we take it all back. Forthe truth is, instead of depreciat- 
ing their Ministr}^ and Sacraments, we admit not only all 
for which most Denominationalists contend, but, in the 
case of Baptism we go beyond their claim for it by ac- 
knowledging that it makes the candidate "A member of 
Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the King- 
dom of Heaven," which they deny. It must, however, 
not be understood from this acknowledgment that we 
concede a Divine Priesthood to Denominational minis- 
tries. We can and do acknowledge as much of Baptism 
administered by ordinary Laymen and Lay-women. 
But why should they take offense at our refusal to force 
upon them a character which they, themselves, repu- 
diate? Denominationalists generally deny that their 
ministers are Priests and that Divine Grace is given 
through the channel of Sacramental ordinances. Ac- 
cording to their view a minister is only a commissioned 
preacher, and the Sacraments are simply commemora- 
tive ceremonies. How can they justly charge us with 
uncharitableness if we simply take them at their word 
upon this point ? 

''It is well to understand," says Bishop Hugh Miller 
Thompson, "that we have little, if any, difference with 
the 'Denominations' about their ministry and ordi- 
nances. These are vahd for all that is claimed for them. 
They say that their ministers are teachers of religion, 
duly appointed and authorized by a voluntary society. 
They are certainly this. They assert that their ministers 
are not Priests and have no Sacerdotal power or au- 
thority. To this assertion we assent. They profess 
not to have Apostolic Succession. We agree with them 
upon this point. They state that they administer an 
Ordinance in which the Body and Blood of Christ are 
not really present, and are not verily and indeed given, 
taken, and received ; but that it is merely a mode of 



208 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



recalling to their minds our Lord's death. This state- 
ment is quite unobjectionable. About Baptism we 
differ somewhat from them, attributing to that Sac* 
rament, as administered by them, a greater effect than 
their own faith ventures to hope for. Administered 
with water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, we believe 
it to regenerate the soul that duly receives it, and to 
graft it into the body of Christ's Church. So, we admit 
their ministry to be all that they claim it to be; and we 
admit their ordinances to be in no case less, and in one 
case more, than they, themselves, believe." 

And if there be any Denominationalists who claim 
that their ministry is a Priesthood and that their Sac- 
raments are the means through which Divine gifts are 
received, the irritation caused by our attitude towards 
non-Episcopacy may be somewhat soothed by the fact 
that they are not alone in being called upon to sustain 
the charge of invalidity. Komanists are continually 
representing our ministry and Sacraments to beinvalid. 
There was a time when Denominationalists also did 
this. Bishop Coleman, speaking of the Puritans of 
Colonial days, says: ''While some were pleased to allow 
that a clergyman ordained by an English Bishop re- 
quired no further credentials to officiate when called to 
a society of Congregationalists, others compelled such 
to submit to a 're-ordination by the brethren.' This 
ceremony was gone through with, for example, in the 
case of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, at Newton, afterwards 
Cambridge, in the year 1633, and of Master Cotton, at 
Boston, in the same year. Episcopal Ordination was 
even looked upon as something for which those receiv- 
ing it must needs apologize, and there seems to be 
reason for believing that in some instances they were 
obliged to recant it." Such treatment has never wor- 
ried us. Whenever occasion has arisen, our writers and 



OBJECTIO^s^S ANSWERED. 



209 



preachers have proceeded to show by unanswerable ar- 
guments based upon Scripture and history that our 
Ministry and Ordinances are valid. 

If Denominationalists are sure of their ground, let 
them, when we call in question their ministry, pursue 
the course towards us that we do towards Eomanists. 
Unfortunately for them, of those who do this the 
majority have the experience of good Dr. Wolff, of 
missionary fame, about whom the following anecdote is 
related. The Doctor, burning with zeal to preach the 
Gospel of Christ, was on one occasion traveling in some 
out of the way region in the Orient. It was in the 
Diocese of one of the Bishops of the Greek Church ; and 
in the course of his wanderings he fell in with the Bishop. 
"Who are you?" said the Bishop, looking at him 
rather suspiciously. "A poor Missionary," said the 
Doctor. "A what?" asked the Bishop. "A Mis- 
sionary,'' repeated Dr. Wolff, pulling out his little black 
Bible. And those of us who are old enough to have 
seen ^Yolff fingering his Bible, will remember how it al- 
ways seemed to open of itself at the precise text he 
wanted. "I am come to preach salvation to these 
people. How shall they call on Him on whom they 
have not believed? Or how shall they beheve in Him of 
whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear 
without a preacher?" "That is all very well," said the 
Bishop, "but why don't you finish the text?" "How 
shall they preach except they be sent ?" "AVho sent you?" 
"Sent?" said Wolff. "Yes, sent!" replied the Bishop. 
"My Metropolitan sent me, and his predecessors sent 
him, and I send my Priests and Deacons. Now, who 
sentyou?" "The Spirit of the Lord, "said Wolff boldly; 
for he was not a man to be put out of countenance. "I 
hope you do not deny that Christ is able to send His 
own messenger without human intervention?" "God 

C. A .—14 



210 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 



forbid that I should doubt it for a moment," the Bishop 
answered, "I know He can. I know that He sent Moses 
and Aaron, without human intervention, to establish 
the xiaronie Priesthood ; and I know that He superseded 
this very Priesthood of His own Ordination, by sending 
also without human intervention the Apostolic Priest- 
hood; and what He did once He can do again. God 
forbid ! that I should doubt that ; I should be a Jew if I 
did. Still I do observe that whenever God does send 
anyone direct from Himself and without human inter- 
vention, He is always graciously pleased to confirm His 
own appointment to the minds of his faithful servants 
by signs and wonders. Moses called down bread from 
Heaven. He and Aaron brought forth water from the 
rock. And so, also, when God was pleased to supersede 
that Priesthood, many wonders and signs were wrought 
by the hands of the Apostles. They did not go upon 
their own testimony; but appealed to these as wit- 
nesses ; as, in the case of their Master, Himself, the works 
which they did testified of them. Now," continued the 
Bishop, "without at all doubting the possibility that a 
Wolffian succession may be commissioned to supplant 
that of the Apostles, where are your witnesses ? I sup- 
pose you do not expect us to take your word for it. 
What supernatural powers do you appeal to, in proof 
of your Heavenly mission?" This was a puzzling ques- 
tion. It had puzzled Mahomet several hundred years 
before. That false prophet, however, got out of it clever- 
ly, by saying that he had written the Koran, which as 
everyone thought, was a miracle of itself; but poor 
Wolff could not say that he had written the Bible ; so 
he fell to thinking. The result was that he came home, 
I will not say a better man— for a most excellent man 
he always was — but by many shades a wiser man ; and 
soon afterwards sought for Ordination in the regular 



OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED. 



211 



way, and was ordained by Bishop Doane, of New 
Jersey. 

Nor has the Greek Bishop been the only one to 
recognize that miracles are the necessary credentials of 
him who, without Episcopal and Canonical Ordination, 
claims to have a sufficient call to preach the Gospel and 
administer the Sacraments. When the Anabaptists 
appealed to Luther, "not doubting," as the historian 
says, "that he who had first preached the liberty of the 
Gospel would pronounce in their favor," they had cer- 
tainly some reason to be astonished at a reply which 
seemed to involve the formal renunciation of one of the 
first principles of his Reformation. "Let the Senate 
ask this man," said the Reformer, when giving advice 
about the ministerial pretensions of their would-be 
pastor, Muncer, "who called him? and, if he shall an- 
swer, ' God,' let them charge him to prove his calling by 
some ma<nifest sign, which, if he cannot do, let him be 
repudiated as an impostor." Under the circumstances 
this was a harsh and inconsistent judgment which must 
be as great a source of regret and embarrassment to 
the Lutheran ministry as John Wesley's famous Ser- 
mon CXV, on "the Ministerial Office," is to the Metho- 
dist Ministry. 

4. Finally, it will be objected that we limit cove- 
nanted salvation to membership in the historic Catho- 
lic Church. But this is not the same as saying that 
only members of the Greek, Roman, and AngHcan Com- 
munions will be saved. As has already appeared by 
reiterated statements, we acknowledge all who have 
been baptized in the name of the Trinity to be in cove- 
nant relationship with God. Nor is it equivalent to a 
declaration that all non church members will be lost. I 
suppose that there is not an Episcopalian to be found 
anywhere, who beheves that God's mercy does not 



212 OUR CONTROVERSY WITH DENOMIT^ATIONALISTS. 



overflow the Church. But if there were such, Deuomina- 
tioualists should be the last to accuse them of bigotry ; 
for, as we have seen, their ancestors, the Presbyterians, 
declared in their Westminster Confession of Faith that 
there is a visible Cathohc Church, "the house and 
family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possi- 
bility of salvation." 

No, we do not limit salvation to the adherents of the 
Catholic Church. What we do say is that covenanted 
or assured salvation is limited to the Church. Nor 
do we, as our objectors represent, tie God's gifts of 
grace and mercy to Sacramental Ordinances. Our 
doctrine is lucidly and concisely set forth in Dr. Sea- 
bury s edition of "Haddan's Apostolical Succession," 
"Without Bishops, no Presbyters; Avithout Bishops 
and Presbyters, no legitimate certainty of Sacraments ; 
without Sacraments, no certain union with the mys- 
tical Body of Christ; without this, no certain union 
with Christ; and without that union, no salvation. 
Yet with these necessary provisos at every step, by the 
very nature of the moral laws and attributes of God : 
First, that these outward things may be had ; secondly, 
that due allowance be made for ignorance, prejudice, 
or necessity ; thirdly, that the system be regarded as 
subservient and ministering to a true faith, a Hving 
religion, and a hearty love of Christ in the soul." 

We recognize the truth, that God is free to grant His 
blessings through whatever instrumentality He may see 
fit to use, or directly without any ceremonial channel. 
But are Ave justified in concluding that, because God is 
not bound to the Ordinances which He has instituted as 
the instruments of our salvation, we are free to disre- 
gard them ? If God be not limited, we are. Those of us 
who know His appointments, certainly are not justified 
in expecting that we can be saved without using them. 



OBJECTIONS ANS^\EEED. 



213 



We do not, then, make the Church of the Historic Epis- 
copate to be the only way of salvation, or confine the 
bestowal of God's Grace to her Ministry and Sacra- 
ments. All we claim is that they are the Divinely ap- 
pointed ark of safety and channels of refreshment. Mul- 
titudes, doubtless, will reach Heaven by other ways. 
But we contend that it is, nevertheless, required of all 
to determine whether or not God has appointed a way, 
and if it be found, to walk in it. Moreover, Holy Scrip- 
ture makes it a duty to search out and to take "the 
old paths," rather than the new. Stand in the ways, 
and see and ask for the old paths where is the good 
way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your 
souls." These words of the Prophet Jeremiah, ad- 
dressed to the perverse and erring people of Judah, are 
full of instruction for those who desire to serve God 
acceptably under the Christian as well as the Mosaic 
Dispensation. At all times entitled to the most serious 
consideration, they are especially applicable to this 
age. What this precept, when apphed to the unhappy 
condition in which divided Christendom finds itself, 
requires is, that we should all follow the history of 
the body with which we are identified and each Article 
of its distinctive Creed back to the place of the parting 
of ways. There we shall find the way from which all 
others have diverged the good way," the way which 
all Christians once pursued, the way in which all, if they 
will, can walk again in unity and brotherly love, the 
only way by which the hosts of Christ can progress 
towards universal conquest. The world will never be 
evangelized by a divided Church, and the Church will 
never be united so long as Christians continue in the 
paths of their own choosing. All must come back to 
the " old paths," "the good way." For nearly a thou- 
sand 3^ears Komanists have been wandering further and 



214 OUK CONTEOVERSY WITH DENOMINATIONALISTS. 

further from this way in one direction, and Denomina- 
tionah'sts, since their beginning, more than three cen- 
turies ago, have been doing the same in the opposite 
course. Both of these must follow the example which 
the Anghcan Communion set at the Reformation, by 
retracing their steps until they come to ''the good 
way." God grant that the Denominational reader for 
whom this chapter has been especially written, may be 
disposed, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, to heed 
the Prophet's injunction, by asking for " the old paths," 
where is the good way ? " and having found it, may he 
walk therein and find rest for his soul. 

''For all Thy Church, Lord, we intercede; 

Make Thou our sad divisions soon to cease; 
Draw us the nearer each to each, we plead, 

By drawing all to Thee, Prince of Peace. 
Thus may we all one Bread, one Body, be 
Through Thy blest Sacrament of Unity. 

" We pray Thee, too, for wanderers from Thy fold ; 

Oh, bring them back, good Shepherd of the sheep. 
Back to the Faith which Saints believed of old, 

Back to the Church which still that Faith doth keep. 
Soon may we all one Bread, one Body, be, 

Through Thy blest Sacrament of Unity." 



The Church for Americans. 



LECTURE IV. 

THE .nOTMER CHURCh OE EiNGLAND. 

I. C0>TIXUITY OF THE EXGLISH ChUECH. 

11. XoT Okigixallt a Mission of Rome. 

HI. ROMAX EXCEOACHMEXTS AXD ThEIE ReSISTAXCE. 



(215) 



AUTHORITIES. 



Beight, Early English Church History. 

Bright, Side Waymarks of Church History. 

CoiT, Early History of Christianity in England. 

Cox, Is the Church of England Protestant? 

Cole, The Anglican Church. 

Fry, Lectures on the Church of England. 

Garxier, Canon, The Title-deeds of the Church of England. 

Hart, Ecclesiastical Records of England, Ireland and Scotland. 

Jennings, Ecclesia Anglicana. 

Jennings, A Manual of Church History. (2 Vols.) 
Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History. (2 Vols.) 
LiGHTFOOT, Bp., Leaders in the Northern Church. 
Perry, Canon, Students' English Church History. (3 Vols.) 
Pryce, The Ancient British Church. 
Robertson, History of the Christian Church. (8 Vols. ) 
Ross-Lewin, Continuity of the English Church. 
Sparks, The Resistance of the English Church and Nation to the 
Encroachments and Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome. 
Stoughton, Ecclesiastical History of England. (2 Vols.) 

PAMPHLETS. 

Garrett, Bp., Historical Continuity. 

Grueber, The Church of England and the Ancient Church of the 
land. 

LowEiE, The Mother Church of England. 
Nye, The Story of the Church of England. 
Nye, The Right of the Church of England to Her Property. 
Oldroyd, The Continuity of the English Church Through 
Eighteen Centuries. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 

Church Club Lectures, The Church in the British Isles. 
Church Club Lectures, The Church in the British Isles, Post 
Restoration Period. 



(216) 



The Mother Church of 
England. 

WE have endeavored to shoAY elseAvhere* that the 
Gospel makes identifleation with some true 
branch of the Apostolic Church of Christ 
obligatory upon all. It is now necessary, in order that 
the way may be prepared for determining whether or 
not a person who unites with the American Episcopal 
Church fulfills this obligation, to devote a lecture to the 
Mother Church of EngHsh-speaking Christianity. 



I. 

CONTINUITY OF THE ENGIISH CHURCH. 

WE shall assume that all, whether they be repre- 
sentatives of Komanism or of Denomination- 
alism, admit that the Church of England, be- 
fore the Reformation, was a part of the true Church of 
Christ. Certainly she was the only form of organized 
Christianity then in the land. It is equally certain that 
her title to Catholicity was never questioned during all 
of the pre-Reformation ages. The impression, however, 
prevails that the Church of Rome was the Church in 
England up to the time of Henry YIII., and that the 
present rehgious establishment is a new foundation. 

The necessity for the dissemination of knowledge con- 
cerning the origin and continuous history of the Mother 



*Lectures I and III. 



(217) 



218 THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

Church of England, is illustrated by an experience 
which I had about a year ago upon the occasion of the 
holding of the first Service in one of the many large towns 
of Ohio where, as the General Missionary of the Diocese, it 
has been my duty and privilege to care for the isolated 
and neglected members of the Church by establishing 
Missions or occasional Services. At this place, a county- 
seat, there was not an adherent of the Church to be 
found, and so, though the congregation was good for a 
stormy evening, and the Service, considering a number 
of adverse circumstances, was as satisfactory as could 
be expected, it did not look as if the result would justify 
the somewhat unusual expenditure of time, money, and 
energy which the Service had cost. It was, therefore, a 
source of encouragement and gratification to me when, 
as the congregation was disbanding, a middle-aged 
man with his half grown son lingered to thank me for 
the Service, and to request permission to accompany 
me to the hotel for some conversation about "vour 
Church." 

When we reached my room he told me the following 
interesting story: "I am a farmer living twelve miles 
from town. I saw the announcement of your Service in 
our county paper, and, having lately become interested 
in the Episcopal Church, my son and I have driven all 
the way through the rain and mud to attend it. I have 
never been at one before, partly, because there has been 
a lack of convenient opportunity, and partly, because 
of a deep-rooted prejudice of thirty years' standing 
against that Church. In times past, as you may re- 
member, there was a great deal more of controversy 
and bigotry about matters of religion than there is 
now. The members of the rural congregation to which 
I belonged would have gone home feeling that they had 
not received their money's worth unless the preacher 



CO^-TIXriTT OF THE ENGLISH CHUECH. 



219 



had dwelt at sorae length upon the perfections of their 
sect and severely criticised its nnnierous rivals. One of 
the ministers who stood high in the estimation of us 
all for learning, because, as I have since concluded, he 
descanted a gTeat deal concerning matters about which 
neither he nor his auditors knew anything, used fre- 
quently to 20 out of his way. for there was no parish 
within fifty miles of the place, to denounce the Episco- 
pal Church. As much of his reputation for learning 
rested upon his supposed famiharity with history. I did 
not question his representation that the Mother Church 
of England owed its existence to Henry Till. Erom 
what he said about that monarch and his Ecclesiastical 
handiwork. I naturally concluded that I never should go 
across the road to attend a Chtirch which had such an 
ignominious origin and between which and the Churcli 
of Rome there was nothing but the thinnest and flimsi- 
est paper wall. Though 1 have since freqtiently spent 
more or less time in a city where you have many 
Churches, and though there has for years been a parish 
within less than three hours ' drive, the resolution formed 
so lono' ago has never been broken until this evening. 
This departure from a life-long cotirse is accounted 
for by the fact that a much-beloved relative, who has 
long been one of the most respected ministers of the 
Denomination to which I belong, to the astonishment 
of everybody, became an Ex3iscopahan a few weeks ago. 
Shortly after seeing the announcement of the change. I 
received a copy of the Prayer Book and certain pubH- 
cations containing some account of the Episcopal 
Chtirch. and answers to popular objections to her. 
There is. of course, no doubt in my mind as to whom I 
am indebted for them. Under the circumstances it was 
natural for me to read them attentively in the hope of 
discovering thereasonfor my fiiend's unexpected action. 



220 



THE MOTHER CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 



Even the cursory examination which I first gave the 
Prayer Book led me to the conclusion that it was a 
pretty good book, even if Henry YIII. did make it. 
The pamphlets put the Episcopal Church, as to its 
origin, history, and relationship to Rome in a very dif- 
ferent light from that in which it was placed by the 
pulpit orators, from whom my knowledge of Ecclesias- 
tical History has been chiefly derived. After reading 
them I went back to the Prayer Book and have read 
much of it over, and over, with an ever-increasing sense 
of the beauty of its Services— hence my desire to join in 
their public use as I have had the privilege of doing this 
evening. And now I have a favor to ask of you. It is 
that you will outhne a course of reading in the history 
of the English and American Episcopal Churches, and 
give me the address of a publisher from whom the books 
may be procured." 

It need hardly be said that this request was readily 
complied with. The next thing that the writer heard of 
the man was from the Rector of the nearest Church. He 
and a part of his large family had put in an appearance 
on a Sunday morning. After the Service he made him- 
self known and requested that he and his house might 
receive preparation for Confirmation at the Bishop's 
next visitation. All the family, who have arrived at 
the years of discretion, are now communicants of the 
Church. Its head has proved to be a veritable mission- 
ary outside of his own household, for he has talked to 
his neighbors about the Church, and distributed broad- 
cast among them Prayer Books and tracts. So suc- 
cessful has he been that the community, which, owing to 
the recent construction of a railw^ay and the estabhsh- 
ment of a station for its convenience, is developing into 
a village, has determined to erect a Chapel and request 
the Bishop to send a Clergyman to minister to them. 



CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHUECH. 



221 



There is, indeed, considerable reason for the wide- 
spread opinion that Henry YIII. founded the Church of 
England. Several new organizations were formed dur- 
ing that period. And so many changes were made in 
her government, doctrine, and worship as to make it 
very natural for people generally to suppose that the 
Reformed Church of England was simply one among 
the new organizations. It was to the interest of the 
representatives of Romanism on the one hand, and of 
Denominationalism on the other, to encourage this im- 
pression. Both were anxious to make it appear that 
this Church is a creature born of the Reformation. Ro- 
manists desired this because it could then be shown 
that so far as historic continuity and identity with the 
Church that our Lord founded are concerned, we are no 
better oif than any of the sects ; and Denominational- 
ists, because it puts our Church on the same footing with 
themselves. This accounts for the fact that history, as 
it is taught in our common schools, often does us fla- 
grant injustice. The author has heard no less a person- 
age than the principal of a high school, w^ho afterwards 
became superintendent, tell his pupils that Henry YIII. 
founded the Episcopal Church. 

Episcopalians claim that the present Church of Eng- 
land is identical with that which was in the land before 
the Reformation. The changes in doctrine, govern- 
ment, and worship, though confessedly great, did not 
necessarily result in the creation of anew Church. This is 
because all such changes were merely reformatory and so 
stopped short of revolution. " I know that some people 
are to be found," writes Lord Selborne, "who pretend 
that a new^ Church of England w^as set up at that time, 
and the old Church cast out. For that pretense there 
is no foundation in law or in fact. A Church does not 
lose its identity or sameness, as an organized institution , 



222 



THE MOTHER CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 



by changes in form or ceremony. In the English 
Reformation, the organization of the Church, as the 
Church of England, was not displaced or broken at any 
single point. And I think it right to add, though it is 
not my object to enter at all into theological questions, 
that nothing was then done which made the Church of 
England really different in any point of substance 
affecting religious faith or practice from what it had 
originally been in the days of Augustine, the first Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury." 

The Eeformation left the Church stripped of Roman 
bondage and corruptions, but this only rendered her, 
in all important respects, what she had been before the 
captivity, an independent, pure branch of the Catholic 
Church of Christ. "An old Gothic tower, founded cen- 
turies ago, might, in lapseof time, beso overgrown with 
ivy, and choked with rubbish, as to have all its original 
features concealed. If the ivy were pruned away, and 
the rubbish removed, it would not be a newly-founded 
tower, but the old one restored. But if the proprietor 
should build a new one on some other part of his estate, 
digging new foundations and raising new walls, this 
would be another tower, however closely it might re- 
sembletheold one in its outward features." The point of 
difference between the Church of England and the vari- 
ous Denominations is seen in the fact that they were not 
even in existence before the Reformation, while she has 
come down in unbroken continuity from the Apostles. 
If, in an evil day, the United States should become tribu- 
tary to some foreign power from which, after a struggle 
of, say, three hundred years, our posterity succeeded in 
freeing themselves, and if they then returned to the full 
constitutional government which had been in force be- 
fore, and never more than partially set aside, would not 
the nation, at the end of the three centuries of subjuga- 



CONTIi^UITT OF THE ENGLISH CHUECH. 



223 



tion, be historically the same as that which had pre- 
viously existed? If so, the Church of England was 
identically the same after the Eeformation as before. 

"Out of Lake Leman," as our poet Bishop, Coxe, of 
Western New York, puts it, comes the ' arrowy Ehone/ 
beautiful as light from the clear blue sky. You may have 
stood on the little promontory where the Arve issues 
forth to meet it— a red torrent from the Alps, once the 
crystal of melted snows, but now arrayed like a Papal 
legate. How the purer river writhes and refuses to be 
tainted ! How the red ruffian presses and pushes it to 
the wall ! Still the Ehone keeps up the contest as best 
he may. For a time he holds his own, but, alas! the 
red wins, and the sapphire disappears. What is visible 
to the common eye is no longer the blue Ehone, but 
only the blood-colored Arve. Is the nobler river lost? 
By no means. It becomes the Ehone again, and rolls 
on superbly, through the broad lands, where Irenseus 
planted the Gospel, under the walls of Lyons and Aries, 
and so to the sea. Behold a parable that illustrates 
the Nicene Church in England, in her original glory, 
and in her restored identity." 

That the contrast betw^een the Church of England, im- 
mediately before, and after, the Eeformation did not nec- 
essarily interrupt the continuity of her history, has been 
aptly illustrated by the celebrated Dr. Hook, in a ser- 
mon preached before the Eoyal Family: "About two 
years ago," said he, "the very Chapel in w^hich we are 
now assembled was repaired, certain disfigurements re- 
moved, certain improvements made. Would it not be 
absurd on that account to contend that it ig no longer 
the Chapel Eoyal? Would it not be still more absufd if 
someone were to build a new Chapel in the neighbor- 
hood, imitating closely what this Chapel was five years 
ago, and carefully piling up all the dust and rubbish 



224 



THE MOTHER CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 



which was at that time swept from hence, and then pro- 
nounce that, not this, to be the ancient Chapel of the 
sovereigns of England? The absurdity is at once ap- 
parent; but this is precisely what has been done by the 
Koman CathoHc or Papist. The present Church of 
England is the old Church of England reformed in the 
reigns of Henry, Edward, and Ehzabeth, of certain su- 
perstitious errors ; it is the same Church which came 
down from our British and Saxon ancestors, and, as 
such, it possesses its original endowments, which w^re 
never, as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, taken 
from the Church and given to another." 

This point has been illustrated also by the washed 
face of a besmirched coal miner. The change gives the 
appearance of a complete transformation, or of a new 
creation ; and yet no one believes that the identity has 
been changed. ''I make not," says Archbishop Bram- 
hall, A. D. 1593-1663, "the least doubt in the world but 
that the Church of England, before the Eeformation, 
and the Church of England, after the Reformation, are 
as much the same Church, as a garden before it is 
weeded, and after it is weeded, is the same garden; 
or as a vine, before it is pruned, and after it is pruned 
and freed from luxuriant branches, is one and the same 
vine." "Be it known to all the world," said Bishop 
Hall, A. D. 1574-1656, "that our Church is only re- 
formed or repaired, not made new— there is not one 
stone of a new foundation laid by us ; yea, the old walls 
stand still." 



The identity of the Church of England, which has 
been since the Reformation, with that which was before, 
is estabhshed by a variety of considerations. We shall 
here consider five of them. 



COXTIXUITY OF THE EXGLISH CHURCH. 



225 



1. In all essentials of Catholic doctrine, worship, and 
government there was no change. This observation 
will, according to our design, receive Ml proof and illus- 
tration in other connections. We shall, for the present, 
do no more than simply call attention to the fact that 
our Book of Common Prayer is essentially the same as 
that which had been in use from the earliest times. 
During the Dark Ages, many Koman superstitions and 
corruptions crept into the various liturgical " Uses." 
The Eeformers eliminated these. The first Prayer 
Book of Edward YL, a. d. 1549, was mainly a simplifi-. 
cation of the old Service Books,,translated into P]nglish, 
with very little matter added. Indeed, Cranmer offered 
to prove to all comers that "the Order," or, as we 
should say, the Prayer Book of the Church of England, 
as set out by the authority of King Edward YL, was 
the same as had been used in the Church for fifteen hun- 
dred years past — a challenge which was never taken up 
by any Roman Catholic. None of the revisions of a.d. 
1559, 1604, or 1662 serioush' altered the character im- 
pressed upon the English Liturgy from the first. The 
Roman Liturg^^ was never used in England, except in 
some monasteries of foreign monks, and by the present 
Italian schism during the last one hundred and fifty 
years. 

2. Those who effected the English Reformation did 
not intend to abandon the old Church and to found a new 
one, nor did it even occur to them that they were doing 
so, in casting off the Roman yoke. They put their house 
in order, but it was the same dwelling after as before. 
Mr. Gladstone says : "I can find no trace of that opin- 
ion which is now so common in the mouths of unthink- 
ing persons, that the Roman Catholic Church was 
abolished at the time of the Reformation, and that a 
Protestant Church was put in its place, nor does there 

C. A.— 15 



226 



THE MOTHEE CHUECH OF EXGLAXD. 



appear to have been so much as a doubt, in the mind of 
any one of the Eeformers. whether the Church legally 
established in England after the Reformation was the 
same institution with the Church legally established 
in Enoiand before the Reformation." The fact that the 
Roman Church was never by any Act of Parhament 
recognized as the English Church and that the Re- 
formed Church has always been so regarded, notwith- 
standing there were no Acts of Estabhshment passed 
in the reign of Henry Till, or any of his successors, 
is in itself sufficient conclusively to estabhsh the claim 
of Episcopalians that the Enghsh Reformers did not 
intend to organize a new body, and that the Church 
of England after the Reformation, was. and is, in 
history and in law, identically the same which was 
previously the Church of that country. 

But while no statute can be cited which suggests 
that any new organization was effected at the Refor- 
mation, many official documents of that period plainly 
show that there was no intention of breaking the 
Church's continuity. For example, in the Preface to 
the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.. published at 
the very crisis of the Reformation, we find this state- 
ment : The Service in this Church of England, these 
many years hath been read in Latin to the people."" 
It was expressly declared in an Act passed in the year 
1533 that "it is not intended to force the Church 
of England into an uncatholic position, or to change 
its character as a sound branch of Christ's Holy 
Church.'" And when Queen Elizabeth was requested 
by the German Emperor to permit the Roman Catho- 
lics to set up an independent worship, she refused, upon 
the ground that ''there is no new faith propagated in 
England, no rehgion set up but that which was com- 
manded by our Savior, practiced by the primitive 



COXTIXriTT OF THE ENGLISH CHtlECH. 



227 



Church, and unanimously approTed b}^ the Fathers of 
the best antiquity." 

In freeing herself from the Roman yoke and corrup- 
tions, the Church of England no more became a new 
Church, than she did, when, after centuries of liberty 
and purity, she began to be yoked and corrupted. If 
the casting off of the Papacy, Indulgences, Mariola- 
try, and the like, made a new Church in England, then 
the imposition of them upon a Church that was cer- 
tainly wholly free of them for five centuries, and practic- 
ally so. for more than a thousand years, must have 
created a new English Church, The Anglican Church," 
says Bishop Coxe, "was primitive and pure; she became 
enslaved and defiled; she regained her liberties, she 
washed, and is clean. But she is none other to-day, as 
to individuality and identity, than she was when Ital- 
ians were sent to put chains upon her ; when she shook 
her chains in defiance, as she chafed under them; when 
she lay down and slept awhile, bafiied and degraded ; 
or when, at last, she woke and broke from her fetters, 
and began to be herself again ; until now, God has 
given her to many nations, and set her footsteps in 
the seas, and enabled us to say, 'Her sound is gone 
out into all lands, and her words into the ends of the 
world.'" 

3. Another strong evidence of the historical conti- 
nuity of the English Church is afforded by the fact that 
there was no transfer of propert}^ The force of this argu- 
ment ^ill be felt by all. If the Roman Church had been 
the Church of England before the Reformation, the Ro- 
manists of that land now would have, at least, a moral 
title to all the Church property that had been accumu- 
lated up to the time of Henry YIII. But their own 
English Bishops are on record as disclaiming any 
right whatsoever to such property. I have before me a 



228 



THE MOTHER CHUECH OF EXGLAXD. 



copy of a Yerv interesting document entitled, "Declara- 
tion of the Roman Catholic Bishops, the Yicars Apos- 
tolic, and their Coadjutors in Great Britain," the ninth 
section of which is "On the claim of the British Catho- 
lics to the property of the Church established in Eng- 
land.'' It runs thus: "British Catholics are charged 
with entertaining a pretended right to the property of 
the estabhshed Church in Eugland. We consider such a 
charge to be totall}^ without foundation. We declare 
that we entertain no pretension to such a claim. We 
regard all the revenues and temporalities of the Church 
establishment as the property of those on whom they 
are settled by the laws of the land. We disclaim any 
right, title or pretension with regard to the same." 
This declaration proves that even the Pope and his 
Enghsh representatives do not believe that the Church 
of Rome was the Church of England before the Reforma- 
tion, otherwise there would be no such article in their 
pronunciamento . 

It has also been decided hy the highest Civil Court of 
England that Rome has no title to English Church prop- 
erty. A nine hundred and ninety-nine }'ears* lease of a 
piece of land to be used for militar}- purposes was given 
by the Church to the Crown in a. d. 872. Upon its ex- 
piration some twenty years ago, it was adjudged that, 
according to the laws of the realm, "it reverts to the 
original owner, the party that gave the lease, namely, 
the Church of Eng^land." This lease was executed over 
six centuries before Henry VIII. was born. It conclu- 
sively establishes the identit}^ of the Church of England 
in the reign of Queen Victoria, with the Church which ex- , 
isted in the time of King Alfred, thus witnessing to her 
continuous organic life through one thousand jesirs 
of history. But a thousand years, long as the stretch 
of time is, far transcending the grasp of imagination, 



COXTIXUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHUECH. 



229 



cover but little over half of the Church's existence in 
England. Planted by St. Paul or St. Joseph, of Arima- 
thea, or at least by some disciple who sat at the feet of 
the beloved St. John, she has come down through the 
British, the Anglo-Saxon, the Norman, the Mediaeval, 
the Reformation, and the Revolution periods to the 
present, looking "forth as the morning, fair as the 
moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with 
banners." 

It is worthy of note, in passing, that the property at 
present possessed b,v the Church of England, speaking 
broadly, was given her before the Norman Conquest, a. 
D. 1066, or since the Reformation. The influence of 
Rome w^as but little greater in the first of these periods 
than it has been in the second. 

4. The name of the Church after the Reformation is 
the same as before, Ecdesia Anglicana, the Church of 
Eno^iand. If the Church of Rome had been the Church of 
England until the reign of Henry YIIL, the name would 
have borne witness to it, and would have been neces- 
sarily changed, but, as it is, the unchanged name bears 
strong testimony to the identity of the present Church 
of England with that which was before the Reformation. 

5. But a most conclusive evidence of the identity of 
the present Church of England with that of the pre-Re- 
formation period, is the fact that the w^hole nation, with 
scarcely a dissenting voice, consented to the changes 
which terminated the usurped jurisdiction of the Pope 
in England, and restored to the Crown its ancient au- 
thority over both the temporal and spiritual estates of 
the realm. It is popularly and erroneously supposed 
that there would have been no Reformation of the Eng- 
lish Church, but for the iniquitous matrimonial projects 
of Henry YIIL, the consummation of which made neces- 
sary the repudiation of the Roman supremacy. As Sj 



230 



THE MOTHER CHUKCH OF ENGLAND. 



matter of fact, however, nothing can be more confidently 
predica ted than that the Reformation of England would 
have taken place very much as it did, and at about the 
same time, even if the King had seen fit to resist, rather 
than abet it. "Revolutions which shake the deepest 
foundations of society, and destroy old forms of belief ; 
reformations for which a world is anxiousl}- looking, do 
not take their rise from the will of a single individual. 
They are the slow groAvth of time, the outcome and 
final result of centuries of forgetfulness of dut}^, and of 
infinite and wide-spread mismanagement. It is as great 
a folly to attribute the English Reformation to the will 
of Henry, as to ascribe the gradual and necessary prog- 
ress of the Papacy wholly to the False Decretals, or to 
assert that the French Revolution sprang from a single 
cause. At the time of Henry's accession, the Reforma- 
tion was already in existence, silently working and fer- 
menting in the minds of all men. Any occasion might 
give it birth; at an^^ moment any individual — a monk 
in Germany, or a King in England — might call it 
forth, and clothe it with a shape and a name." Henry 
yill. was therefore, in reality, but the gilded hand 
on the outside of the dial — the hour to strike was 
determined by the obscure but weighty movements 
within. 

There had been a time when the Roman sway was, 
upon the whole, beneficial to England, but that time 
had passed. Adam Smith goes none too far w^hen he 
says: "During the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thir- 
teenth centuries, and for some time before and after 
that period " [that is to say, during the time of Papal 
domination in England] "the constitution of the 
Church of Rome may be considered as the most formid- 
able combination that was ever formed against the 
authority and security of civil government, as well as 



COXTIXUTTY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 



231 



against the liberty, happiness, and reason of mankind." 
''In nearly every way," says Dean Farrar, ''material 
and moral, the Papacy was a curse to England." 

Their novel Courts of Appeal, and the usurped power 
of appointing to vacant Bishoprics and benefices, 
enabled the Popes at will effectually to resist the con- 
stitutional legal machinery ; to introduce innumerable 
corrupting agencies, and more and more to gratify their 
insatiable greed for money by a system of extortion so 
stupendous and unconscionable, as really to amount to 
wholesale robbery, the Kke of which the world perhaps 
never witnessed before or since. Some faint idea of the 
extent of that stream of gold which, during the Dark 
Ages, flowed to Kome from England, may be gathered 
from the recorded complaint of the House of Commons, 
made as early as the year a. d. 1376. It was main- 
tained on the floor of the house that "the sums paid to 
the Pope by those alone, who were indebted to him for 
Ecclesiastical preferment, amounted to five times as 
much as the taxes of the whole realm, which accrued to 
His Majesty, the King, and that there was no monarch 
in Christendom so rich as to possess the fourth part of 
the treasure which was annually exported from Eng- 
land to Kome." Bishop Grey, who was translated from 
Winchester to York in A. d. 1215, was compelled to pay 
to the Pope, for receiving the pall, a sum equivalent to 
fifty thousand dollars of our money. In the light of 
this, how ridiculous it would be were the Pope to make 
any serious claim to the property of the Church of Eng- 
land. He impoverished our Mother Church, but did 
not put so much as a penny into her endowments and 
buildings. The money that went to Kome would have 
built and endowed a hundred cathedrals and colleges, 
but that which came from thence Avould not have kept a 
single Italian monk from starvation. 



232 



THE MOTHEE CHURCH OF EJ^GLAND. 



The people generally had long been convinced that 
things could not always go on in this way. And it is a 
great, though strangely prevalent, mistake, to suppose 
that Henry YIII. was the first to take steps for the pur- 
pose of curbing the rapacity of the Koman potentate. 
Nothing could be wider from the truth. Indeed, so 
accustomed were the people to struggle against the en- 
croachments of the Papacy, and so many were the laws 
which they had in different ages enacted for their self- 
defense, that, when Henry YHI. found it convenient for 
more reasons than the one usuall}^ assigned, to exercise, 
even in Ecclesiastical affairs, the prerogative of ruling 
his Kingdom without interference from the Pontiff— a 
prerogative which the great majority of his predecessors 
had exercised— he had but little to do beyond the en- 
forcement of long-existing laws. 

The proof of all this is admirably set forth by Dr. 
Ingram, a London barrister, in his excellent volume, 
entitled "England and Rome, A History of the Rela- 
tions Between the Papac}^ and the English State and 
Church, from the Norman Conquest to the Revolution 
in 1668." After a most scholarly and exhaustive 
presentation of the whole subject in the hght of full 
quotations from the statutes of the realm, it is asked : 
" What Ecclesiastical jurisdiction did the Pope possess 
in England at the accession of Henry VH. in 1485," 
that is, thirty-two years before Luther commenced his 
reformatory work, and fifty-seven years before Henry 
YHI. broke with Clement YH.? The answer to this ques- 
tion is to the effect that the Pope was possessed of no 
such jurisdiction whatsoever. " The Pope could not ap- 
point, translate, suspend, or depose a Bishop, or regu- 
lar Prelate in England. He could not appoint to an 
English prebend or benefice; and every Enghshman who 
accepted a preferment at home from the Pope, without 



CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHUBCH. 



233 



the King's leave, was liable t o banishment and forfeiture 
of all his property. A Papal excommunication of itself, 
had not the slightest effect in England. No one could 
receive, read, or publish such a document, or any other 
Papal sentence or process without leave of the King." 

It may be conceded that the Popes, during several 
reigns, practically ruled, and grievously spoiled, the 
Church of England, notwithstanding the laws of the 
realm. But it should be remembered that they were 
permitted to do this by the Kings who found it to their 
real or imaginary political interest to be on friendly 
terms with so great a potentate. Not one of them since 
the Plantagenets, had possessed a strictly legitimate 
claim to the crown, and they needed the support of 
Rome to prop up their thrones. Though the people 
were exceedingly long suffering, yet their spohations 
and wrongs sometimes became intolerable. At such 
times they not infrequently offered effectual protest. 
The forcing of the Magna Charta from the despicable 
John in the year 1215, is an illustration in point. This 
celebrated document provided both in its opening and 
closing sentences for the recognition and restoration of 
the ancient hberty of the Church to govern itself. 

As we approach the Reformation, we find the nation 
growing more and more impatient of Papal interfer- 
ences and exactions. This accounts for the phenomenal 
success of Henry YIII. in freeing himself and people 
from the Roman grasp. Romanists and Denomina- 
tionalists have joined hands in efforts to make it ap- 
pear that this self-willed and burly King so intimidated 
his cowering subjects that they espoused his cause 
against the Pope, notwithstanding their sympathies 
and prayers were with "His Holiness." This view is 
contrary to the witness of all trustworthy contempora- 
ries who have left on record their impressions concerning 



234 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



the temper of the people. Even Bishop Gardiner, who 
in the next reign opposed the Reformation, and suf- 
fered five years' imprisonment in the Tower of London, 
and was made Lord Chancellor by "Bloody" Mary, 
tells us: "All who have been born and reared in Eng- 
land, learned and unlearned, men and women, are 
agreed upon this point that they have naught to do 
with Rome." And a correspondent of Cardinal Pole 
writes: "One thing yet resteth that I thought conven- 
ient to advertise you of wherein I do perceive ye be 
ignorant, which is this: Ye write in one part of your 
book that ye think the hearts of the subjects of this 
realm greatly offended with abohshing of the Bishop of 
Rome's usurped authority in this realm, as if all the 
people, or most part of them, took the matter as ye do. 
Wherein I do answer ye be deceived. If, at this day, the 
King's grace would go about to renew in his realm the 
said abolished authority of the Bishop of Rome, I think 
he should find much more difficulty to bring it about in 
his Parliament, and to induce his people to agree there- 
unto, than anything that ever he proposed in his Par- 
liament since his first reign." Dr. Ingram says: "It is 
even absurd to speak of the existence of coercion at a 
time when the King, the two Universities, the two Con- 
vocations, all the Monasteries, Colleges, Chapters, and 
Hospitals in the Kingdom, and the two Houses of Par- 
liament were of the same mind." 

Thus, there can be no question that the Reformation 
would have come about in England some time in the 
course of the sixteenth century, when it was taking 
place in all the surrounding nations, even if Henry VIII. 
had been content to retain Catherine of Aragon as his 
wife. So unanimously resolved upon casting off the 
Papal yoke were the people, that of all their represen- 
tatives at Parliament, only one Bishop, Fisher, and one 



CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHUKCH. 



235 



Layman of note, Sir Thomas More, voted against the 
various constitutional legislative acts which terminated 
the already illegal Papal tyranny and robbery in Eng- 
land. Of the nine thousand eight hundred Clergy, only 
one hundred and eighty-six refused to assent to the Ee- 
formed Offices in "a. d. 1559. Investigation would 
doubtless shoAV that most of these were foreign intrud- 
ers. And when the Nation and Church, at the accession 
of Elizabeth, finally and forever repudiated the usurped 
authority of the Pope, only one hundred and ninety- 
two out of more than nine thousand Clergymen refused 
to subscribe to the Prayer Book, and only eighty of 
these were Rectors of Churches. 

This unanimity puts the identity and continuity of 
the present Church of England with that which w^as be- 
fore the Reformation beyond the possibihty of doubt. 
The whole nation, not excepting even Fisher and More, 
for they did not withdraw from the Church, belonged to 
it after the repudiation of the Pope's authority as they 
had done before. It was, therefore, the same Church 
minus the unconstitutional interferences of the Papacy. 
During long centuries other early history, the Church of 
England, notwithstanding her independence of Roman 
authority, had flourished and been universally recog- 
nized as a true branch.of the Catholic Church of Christ; 
and now^ that she has regained her ancient liberty and 
purity, she is unquestionably the same Church that she 
was before and during the period of her captivity and 
corruption— the Church of England in unbroken con- 
tinuity from the time of Archbishop Theodore, who 
about the year 670 consohdated the various Churches 
of the Heptarchy into one National Church, the Mother 
of English-speaking Christiauity, the rock from which 
the American Episcopal Church is hewn. 



II. 



XOT OBIGIXALLY A MISSIOX OF EOME. 

MAXY of the facts produced in proof of tlie identity 
of the present Church of Eng-land with the 
Church of that country before the Eeforroation. 
also prove that the Church of Home was not the un- 
reformed Church of England. Unless, indeed, that for 
which we have been contending be a fiction, the very 
fact that the present Church of England is not the 
Church of Eome proves that she never was such. For if 
this had ever been the case, it must still be so. or else 
the identity of which we have spoken does not exist. In 
estabhshing the historical continuity of the Mother 
Church, we have, therefore, necessarily established her 
constitutional independence of Eome: nevertheless, it 
will be well to make this appear from other points of 
view. 

That the Church of England up to the Eeformation 
was not, as Ultramontanists represent, simply a branch 
of the Church of Eome is evident .fi'om her origin. Just 
w hen, and by whom, the Church was planted in England, 
can probably never be satisfactorily determined. We 
see the light of the Word shined here, but see not who 
kindled it." But that it was very early and not by the 
Eoman Church is certain. One tradition to which many 
learned men have been inclined to give credence, tells us 
that St. Paul, himself, preached in Britain. That he 
visited Northern Europe seems more than probable 
fi^om his Epistle to the Eomans. where he expresses his 
intention of taking a missionary journev into Spain. 
(236) 



Jerusalem 
The Mother of all the Churches " 



r 

Rome 



Geegoey 



HONOEIUS 



Ephesus 

Gaul 
Britain 



S. Paul and others 



Wales 



Cornwall 350 



Cumbria 400 



Kent 597 



Ireland 441 

1 



Succession 
OF British 
Bishops 
until the 
Church was 
finally driven 
INTO Wales, 
A. D. 587. 



Man 44^ 



Scotland 565 



E. Anglia 631 



Noethumbria 635 



Wessex 634 I 

Mercia 653 



Essex 654 



Sussex 681. 

Diagram, showing tlie origin of the Britisli Church to have been independ- 
ent of Pome. The red tvpe and lines show the descent of the present Church 
of England, and the black type and lines shovv the late appearance and meager 
results of the Roman Missions, They had nothing to do with the conversion of 
the \nglo-Saxon conquerors of Northumbria. Mercia. Esses and Sussex; and 
the part taken bv them in the conversion of Kent. East Anglia and Wessex is as 
compared with that taken by the native British Church unimportant, except 
In the case of Kent. 



NOT OEIGII^ALLY A MISSION OF ROME. 



237 



Thence he might easily have sailed to England. Clem- 
ent, of Rome, a disciple of St. Paul, and mentioned with 
commendation by him in his Epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans, about A. D. 95, thirty years after the death of the 
Apostle says that in preaching the Gospel, St. Paul 
went to the utmost bounds of the West." Nowthisex- 
pression, "the utmost bounds of the West," is the epithet 
that the ancients ordinarily used in speaking of the 
British Isles which composed the principal and alto- 
gether the best-known part of the most westernly por- 
tions of the land that appeared on the maps during the 
first centuries of the Christian era. Eusebius, a. d. 325, 
saysthat one of the Apostles "visited the British Isles," 
and Theodoret, about a century later, mentions Britain 
as one place where St. Paul labored. Hore concludes 
his scholarly summing up of the authorities with the re- 
mark: "There can be no reasonable ground for doubt- 
ing that the British, Church was not only of very ancient, 
but also of Apostolic foundation." 

There are some ten traditions respecting the plant- 
ing of Christianity in Britain. It would be a grave 
error to consider them as altogether worthless because 
they are not a certain source of knowledge. " One lead- 
ing idea seems to underhe them all alike, that the Gos- 
pel was preached in Britain at an early date, but that 
this was effected by different and independent agencies, 
at different times, from different places, and at different 
points in the Island." 

That the early Church of Britain was not a Roman 
Mission is certain. For when in A. d. 597 the Bishop of 
Rome sent Augustine with a band of missionaries to 
the Island, they found an ancient, regularly organized 
Church. As Thomas Fuller quaintly expresses it : " Re- 
hgion came into Britain, not by the semi-circle of Rome, 
but in a direct line from the Asiatic Churches." The 



238 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAT^D. 



celebrated jurist, Blackstone, says: " The ancient Brit- 
ish Church, by whomsoever planted, was a stranger to 
the Bishop of Rome, and all his pretended authority." 

The difference between the two Churches in matters of 
ceremony, which soon became a source of contention, 
also shows that the native Church was not one of Ro- 
man origin. Evidence to this effect still exists. All the 
English Cathedrals and old Churches were built with the 
Chancel to the East, and the main entrance at the West. 
No such universal respect was paid to the points of the 
compass in Ultramontane countries. Rome had no 
Trinity Sunday in her Ecclesiastical year before the end 
of the fourteenth century, and she still names the San- 
days following Pentecost until Adveut after that Festi- 
val, whereas we name them after the feast of the 
adorable Trinity. This was the case before the Refor- 
mation, as may be seen by reference to the Old Sarum 
Missal, for example, ''The 10th Sunday after the Feast 
of the Holy Trinity." Thus, as long as one stone 
remains upon another, and while we adhere to our re- 
spective Liturgies, there will remain monumental and 
documentary witnesses of great antiquity and worth 
to the independent origin of the English Church. 

It has often been represented that the original Celtic 
population, and with it the native Church of Britain, 
were all bat annihilated by the Angles and Saxons, who 
in the fifth and sixth centuries frequently invaded the 
Island and eventually conquered the greater part of it, 
and that the Roman Mission was so successful in the 
conversion of the new inhabitants that the date of its 
establishment may properly be reckoned as the begin- 
ning of the present Church of England. If this represen- 
tation were true, we, as members of the Anglican Com- 
munion, would have no interest to serve by caHing it in 



NOT OEIGINALLY A MISSION OF ROME. 



239 



question. For it would be an honorable origin for our 
Mother Church. During the first six or eight centuries, 
the Church of Kome was as pure a branch of the Catho- 
lic Church as any on earth. But even if Christianity 
had been planted in England by Rome, her pretended 
right to be called the Church of England to the time of 
the Reformation, could not possibly be estabUshed. 
The argument from which it might appear to the unre- 
flecting that such a claim had been made good, would 
prove quite too much to the thoughtful, namely, that 
the Church of Rome and Italy should be subject to the 
Church of Jerusalem and Palestine. 

But the representation is not true. The native 
Church was not annihilated. We read that numerous 
Synods of the Welsh Bishops were held during the sixth 
century, at some of which there were as many as one 
hundred and nineteen Bishops present; this number 
being doubtless made up chiefly of abbots, monastic 
Bishops, and the Bishops driven thither from English 
Sees. The most important of these Church assemblies 
were held a,t Brevi, near Lampeter, A. d. 569, and Lucus 
YictorjB, A. D. 570, both presided over by St. David, 
who had been consecrated Bishop by the Patriarch 
of Jerusalem, thus adding an independent strand in 
our Apostolic Succession. 

Nor was the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon con- 
querors due to the Roman Mission in any such degree as 
is popularly supposed. As Mr. Gladstone says: It was 
not by the action of Rome that the whole of England 
was converted. A very large portion of England was 
converted, not by the action of the Roman missionaries, 
but from the North." Christianity was really restored 
to fully nine-tenths of the Island by missionaries, who 
either went out or received their inspiration from the 
ancient Celtic Monasteries of lona and Lindisfarne. To 



240 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



St. Aidan, founder of the latter, and not to St. Augus- 
tine, rightfully belongs the credit of evangelizing the 
Anglo-Saxons. The foreign missionaries did not suc- 
ceed in permanent!}^ planting the Church beyond the 
Kingdom of Kent. The remaining six divisions of the 
Heptarchy were Christianized by the native mission- 
aries. If we illustrate by the hand the relative size of the 
territories of which Augustine and Aidan were respect- 
ively the apostles, w^e shall see that to the foreigner 
belongs about as much as is represented by the portion 
between the ends of the fingers and the first joint, leav- 
ing the remainder of the fingers and the palm to repre- 
sent the territory that was rechristianized by the Celtic 
missionaries. 

And even the credit for the conversion of Kent is by 
no means wholly due to Rome. Augustine found a 
powerful and indispensable ally in the Queen, who w^asa 
Galilean, that is, French not Romish, Christian. She 
mast at least share equally with the monks, the credit of 
the King's Conversion, and the wonderful wholesale Bap- 
tism of the little kingdom which followed. They began 
their work of evangelization in her Canterbury Chapel. 
Pope Gregory himself confessed that "next to God 
England w^as indebted to Bertha for its conversion."* 

The words of the profoundly learned and accurate 
historian, Lightfoot, late Bishop of Durham, and his 
quotation from the French statesman and author, 
Montalembert, a Roman Catholic, confirm our repre- 
sentation in respect to the relative extent and success of 
the labors of the foreign as compared with native Mis- 
sionaries. " Of the triumphs of the Celtic Evangelists," 
says Dr. Lightfoot, "something has been said already. 
If we desire to know the secret of their success it is soon 



* See Frontispiece. 



NOT ORIGINALLY A MISSION OF ROME. 



241 



told. It was the power of earnest, simple, self-denying; 
lives, pleading with a force which no eloquence of words 
can command. But, whatever may be the explanation, 
the fact remains. lona succeeded where Rome had 
failed." "From the cloisters of Lindisfarne," writes 
Montalembert, " and from the heart of those districts 
in which the popularity of ascetic Pontiffs, such as 
Aidan and martyr kings, such as Oswald and Oswin, 
took day by day a deeper root, Northumbrian Chris- 
tianity spread over the southern Kingdoms. What is 
distinctly visible is the influence of the Celtic Priests 
and missionaries everywhere replacing and seconding 
Roman missionaries, and reaching districts where their 
predecessors had never been able to enter. The stream 
of the Divine Word thus extended itself from North to 
South, audits slow but certain course reached in succes- 
sion all the people of the Heptarchy. Of the eight 
Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon confederation, that of Kent 
alone w^as exclusively w^ on and retained by the Roman 
monks, whose first attempts among the East Saxons 
and Northumbrians ended in fail are. In Wessex and in 
East Anglia, the Saxons of the West and Angles of the 
East were converted by the combined action of conti- 
nental missionaries and Celtic monks. As to the two 
Northumbrian Kingdoms, and those of Essex and Mer- 
cia, which comprehended in themselves more than two 
thirds of the territory occupied by the German con- 
querors, these four counties owed their final conversion 
exclusively to the peaceful invasion of Celtic monks, who 
not only rivaled the zeal of the Roman monks, but 
who, the first obstacles surmounted, showed much more 
perseverance, and gained much more success. Sussex 
still remained heathen ; Sussex, the smallest of all but 
one of the earliest founded ; Sussex, the immediate neigh- 
bors of the Roman missionaries in Kent ; Sussex was at 

C. A.— 16 



242 



THE MOTHER CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 



last stormed and taken. And here again the conqueror 
of this last stronghold of heathendom, though an 
ardent champion of the Roman cause, was a Northum- 
brian by birth. Wilfrid had been a pupil of Aidan, and 
his missionary inspiration was drawn from Lindis- 
farne." 

III. 

ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 

BUT it is said that, however it may be in regard to 
the planting of the Church among the Britains 
and the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon conquer- 
ors, the fact remains that from A. d. 596, to the Refor- 
mation, the headship of the Pope was as fully recog- 
nized in England as in the See of Rome. We have 
already had repeated occasions to show the utter base- 
lessness of this pretension, but inasmuch as reitera- 
tion is necessary to remove the effect of inherited mis- 
conceptions, especially when, as in this case, they are 
deepened by persistent misrepresentations which have 
just enough of truth to give the color of plausibility, 
we shall here speak of the resistance, which, at every 
step, was offered to the encroachments of Rome upon 
the liberties of the Church. 

The Italian missionary was not long content with 
confining himself to the work of converting the heathen 
conquerors of Kent, but felt called upon to meddle with 
the worship, ceremonies, and observances of the native 
Church in order that they might be conformed to the 
Roman usage. It is probable that, but for Augustine's 
haughty demeanor, he would have succeeded in pur- 
suading the Celts to make some of the desired changes. 
In A. D. 603, seven Bishops, accompanied by many 



EOMAN EXCEOACHMENTS AND THEIR EESISTANCE. 243 

learned men from the famous Monastery of Bangor, 
met him in a conference. Augustine and his monks, 
failed to rise and to receive courteoush^ the Bishops 
and their attendants upon their arrival. This slight 
set the natives against the foreigners. So when Augus- 
tine had explained the object of the meeting, and made 
his demands, it was replied in substance: "We will ob- 
serve none of your customs, nor accept you as our 
chief. If you would not rise up to us just now, how 
much more will you despise us if we begin to be subject 
to you. We indeed owe fraternal love to the Church of 
God and to the Bishop of Rojne, but we owe no obedi- 
ence to him whom you call Pope. Besides, we cannot 
submit ourselves to him or to you, his representative, 
because we are. already subject to the Metropolitan 
Bishop of Caerleon-on-Usk [now the See of St. David's, 
Wales], who is, under God, our spiritual overseer." Of 
the eight Sees of these seven British Bishops and their 
Archbishop, all of which were in existence at least a hun- 
dred years before the coming of Augustine, two, Lan- 
Patern and Morgan, are extinct ; the other six, na mely, 
Hereford, Worcester, Llandaff, Bangor, St. Asaph ^ 
and St. David's, have existed continuously from that 
day to this ; a standing visible proof of a Christianity 
still existing in Britain, that w^as not brought there by 
Roman missionaries. 

The conference between Augustine and the British 
Bishops, marks the first of a series of protests against 
Roman encroachments that extended through a thou- 
sand years, of which we can take notice of only a few, in 
the briefest words possible. 

Toward the close of the seventh century, Wilfrid, 
Bishop of York, had some difficulty with Theodore, 
Archbishop of Canterbury. Wilfrid appealed his case 
to the Bishop of Rome who commanded that he should 



244 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



be reinstated into his Bishopric. The matter came up 
for consideration before the Witan or the Parhament of 
those days. "Who," said the rulers of the nation, in 
effect, "who is the Pope and what are his decrees? 
What have they to do with us, or we with them? Have 
we not the right and power to manage our own affairs, 
and to punish in our discretion all offenders against 
our laws and customs?" So they burned the parch- 
ment containing the Pope's directions, and cast AVil- 
Irid into prison. Afterwards, in the National Anglo- 
Saxon Synod of Osterfield, Wilfrid reproached the 
members with having "openly opposed the Pope's 
authority for twenty-two years together." 

In A. D. 747, when it was proposed at a Council to 
refer difficult questions to the Bishop of Kome, those 
present refused to entertain it, and declared thej would 
submit to the authority of the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury in such matters. 

■ The xinglo-Saxon Church was certainly independent 
of Rome down to the Norman Conquest, A. d. 1066. 
For when William was making his plans for the sub- 
jugation of England, he secured the Pope's blessing and 
cooperation upon the representation that he desired to 
bring the Church of that country under the dominion of 
the Roman See. This was the surest way to gain the 
Pope's approval, for, as the historian Freeman says in 
his Norman Conquest, "England's crime in the e^^es of 
Rome — the crime to punish which, William's crusade was 
approved and blessed— was the independence still re- 
tained by the Island, Church, and Nation. A land where 
the Church and Nation were but different names for the 
same community, a land where Priests and Prelates 
were subject to the law hke other men, a land where the 
King and his Witan gave and took away the staff of a 
Bishop, was a land which, in the ejes of Rome, was more 



EOMAN EXCEOACHMEXTS AXD THEIR EESISTANCE. 245 

dangerous than a land of Jews and Saracens." But 
AYilliam, after his successful conquest, was quite as 
loath to give the country over to Papal dominion as 
his predecessors had been. In a letter to the Pope he 
writes thus: "Thy legate Hubert, Holy Father, hath 
called upon me in thy name to take the oath of fealty 
to thee and to thy successors, and to exert myself in en- 
forcing the more regular payment of the money which 
my predecessors were accustomed to remit to the 
Church of Rome. One request I have granted, the other 
I refuse. Homage to thee I have not chosen, nor do I 
choose, to do. I never madQ a promise to that effect, 
neither do I find that it was ever performed by my pred- 
ecessors to thine." A word of explanation in regard 
to the money referred to in William's letter is necessary 
to prevent misunderstanding. It was not an obliga- 
tory tribute, but a voluntarj^ gift, for the support of a 
school at Eome where English youths were to have in 
retut-n the advantages of a hberal education. "The 
regularity of its payment depended upon the pros- 
perity of the country, and upon the rise and fall of the 
Church of Rome in popular esteem." 

Early in the twelfth century, Warelwast, Bishop of 
Exeter, w^as sent to Rome for the purpose of bearing 
official protestation against the repeated effort of the 
Pope to meddle with English affairs, and of explaining 
to His Holiness "that the Church and realm of England 
occupied a different position from the continental king- 
doms and Churches, and had alwa^^s been independent 
of Papal jurisdiction." " There are abundant proofs," 
writes Bishop Coxe, "that the Anglican Church was 
everywhere recognized as maintaining an exceptional 
position, other than that of the Latin Churches con- 
nected with 'the Holy Roman Empire.' At the Council 
of Bari, a. d. 1098, when Auselm's spare and modest 



246 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



figure was hidden from Urban II., at a humble distance 
from his throne, he cried out, 'Anselm, father and mas- 
ter, where art thou?' When he very meekly advanced, 
the Pontiff gave him a privileged seat, and added, ' We 
include him indeed in our oecumene, but as the Pope of 
another oecumene.' Whatever meaning he may have 
attached to his almost prophetic words, it is evident 
that he regarded him as a Patriarch, and as somewhat 
which others were not." 

To this period also belongs the famous correspond- 
ence of Pope Pascal 11. , who wrote to the King and 
Bishops of England two letters, which, as has frequently 
been observed, show beyond all doubt that, at the time 
when the Papal power was at its zenith, the Church 
of England was a thoroughly self-governing body, 
possessed of its own system of Ecclesiastical law and 
administration, and also that the Pope's power of visi- 
torial interference had no existence. The letters are too 
long for transcription here, but a short extract or two 
will be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the above 
observation. "From the Apostles St. Peter and St. 
Paul," says the Pope, "the custom has been handed 
down to us that the more weighty affairs of the Church 
should be managed or reviewed by our See. But you, 
in despite of this long-established custom, settle 
among yourselves the business relating to Bishops, 
without even consulting us. You will not allow the op- 
pressed to make their appeals to the Apostolic See. You 
venture without our knowledge to celebrate the Coun- 
cils and Synods. You even attempt, without our 
knowledge, to make translation of Bishops, an un- 
warrantable liberty, as such affairs ought not to be at- 
tempted except by our authority. If for the future, you 
are willing to pay a due respect to the Apostolic See, 
we will treat you as brothers and sons ; but if you per- 



ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 247 



sist in your obstinacy we shall shake off the dust of our 
feet against you, and dehver you to the vengeance of 
God as backsliders from the Catholic Church." 

Eesistance to the encroachment of the Popes, not- 
withstanding this threat, was persisted in until the be- 
ginning of the thirteenth century, less than two hundred 
years before the Reformation, when, through the traitor, 
King John, the State and Church were all but given over 
as plunder to Eonie. But this they did not submit to 
long. The Archbishop of Canterbury became the head 
of a great popular uprising which left the King helpless 
in spite of all that his ally, the Pope, could do for him. 
On June 15th, A. d. 1215, John was compelled to sign 
the famous Magna Charta. The first provision of this 
renowned document runs: "The Church of England 
shall be free and hold her rights entire and her liberties 
inviolate." After specifying these rights and providing 
for the freedom of the subject, and law and order in the 
realm, the Charta concludes with a reassertion of its 
initial principle: "That the Church of England be free, 
and that all men have and hold the aforesaid liberties 
truly and peaceably, freely and quietly, and wholly in 
all things and in all places forever." 

About the middle of the thirteenth century, Robert 
Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, successfully resisted at- 
tempted Papal interference in the affairs of his Diocese. 
In his sermons he boldly connected the misery of the 
people with the wickedness of the Popes, whom he char- 
acterized as devouring wolves in sheep's clothing. Said 
he: "The Roman Pontiff and his Court are the foun- 
tain and the origin of all the evils of the Church." 

In the year 1307, Parliament protested against the 
multiplied forms of Papal exaction, and refused to 
allow the Pope's tax-gatherer to leave the country with 
money he had collected. Shakespeare was not mistaken 



248 



THE MOTHER CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 



in puttiDg- these vigorous ^yords in the mouth of the 
England of this period : 

"Thou canst not, Cardinal, devise a name 
So slight, unworthy, and ridiculous 
To charge me to an answer, as the Pope. 
Tell him this tale; and from the mouth of England 
Add thus much more— that no Italian Priest 
Shall tithe or toll in our dominions. 
Though you, and all the kings of Christendom 
Are led so grossly by this meddling Priest, 
Dreading the curse that money may buy out, 
And by the merit of vile gold, dross, dust, 
Purchase corrupted pardon of a man. 
Who in that sale sells pardon from himself. 
Yet I alone, alone do me oppose 
Against the Pope, and count his friends my foes." 

I Toward the middle of the fourteenth century, the 
foreign Clergy were expelled from the country/ ships 
which brought them hither were confiscated, and any 
who brought Papal letters or bulls into the land, were 
condemned to forfeit all their possessions. Soon after- 
ward, the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire were 
passed. The first of these ordered that "Kings and all 
other Lords are to present unto benefices of their own 
or their ancestors' foundations, and not the Pope of 
Rome," and the second that "all who should sue for re- 
dress in the Papal court should be put out of the pro- 
tection of the laws of England, and forfeit all their 
goods to the State." It was about this time that John 
Wyckhffe, "the Morning Star of the Reformation," was 
engaged in his wonderful work of opposing the Romish 
encroachments, and in translating the Bible into Eng- 
lish. This was one hundred and fifty years before the 
time of Martin Luther. 

A little later, in a. d. 1420, "Archbishop Chichele, 
when censured by Pope Martin V. for not disregarding 



EOMAN EXCEOACHMENTS AXD THEIR RESISTANCE. 249 

the English laws which prevented the Pope from appoint- 
ing to English benefices, told him that he, himself, was 
the only Bishop in England who did pay any attention 
to orders from Kome ; and when Martin, by way of reply, 
took away from him his rank of ex-ofScio legate, and 
bestowed that title on another Bishop, proceeding fur- 
ther to excommunicate all the other Prelates, and to 
threaten an interdict, his Bulls were stopped by the 
government, and the Archbishop appealed at once to a 
General Council, while the new legate was never suffered 
to act in that character." 

Finally, about a century later, came the Keformation 
when the Papal yoke of which the whole nation had all 
along been so impatient was at last cast off. In March, 
A. 1). 1534, the Convocation of Canterbury declared that 
the Roman Pontiff has no greater jurisdiction given to 
him by God in this kingdom than any other foreign 
Bishop, and in the following June, the Convocation of 
York adopted substantially the same resolution. 

Even this necessarily rapid and condensed sketch of 
the resistance of the Church of England to the encroach- 
ments of the Papacy upon her liberties, is quite sufficient 
to justify a passage in one of the earlier writings of 
Cardinal Manning: "If," said he, "any man will look 
down along the line of earl}^ English History, he will 
see a standing contest between the rulers of this land 
and the Bishops of- Rome. The Crown and Church of 
England, with a stead}^ opposition, resisted the entrance 
and encroachment of the secularized Ecclesiastical 
power of the Pope in England. The last rejection of 
it was no more than a successful effort after many a 
failure in a struggle of the like kind." "Through the 
long ages of Roman domination," writes Bishop Light- 
foot, "the Enghsh Church was the least enslaved of all 
the Churches. Her statute book is a continued protest 



250 



THE MOTHEE CHUECH OF EXGLAXD. 



against this foreign aggression. Her ablest kings were 
the resolute opponents of Eoman usurpation. AYhen 
the yoke was finally thrown off, though the strong will 
of the reigning sovereign was the acting agent, vet it 
was the independent will of the Clergj and of the people 
which rendered the change possible. Hence there was 
DO break in the continuity of the English Church." 

No labored or extended argument is now needed to 
prove that the Mother Church of England is a true 
branch of the Catholic Church of Christ. We need only 
to appeal to the history that has been reviewed, and to 
the Roman Church itself. Eor it must be remembered 
that the English Church continued in communion with 
the Church of Rome until the promulgation of the Pope's 
Bull of excommunication in the year 1570, which was 
thirty-five years after the repudiation by Parliament 
and Convocation of the usurped Papal Supremacy in 
England. During this long interval of a full genera- 
tion, Anglican Sacraments and Orders were regarded as 
valid at Rome. And if the English Church retained her 
Catholicity for so man}^ years after the Reformation, 
no living man can show why she has not continued to 
be truly Catholic until the present day. Rome has never 
questioned the Cathohcity of the Anghcan Church be- 
tween the landing of Augustine and the Reformation. 
She cannot deny the Cathohc character of the pre-Au- 
gustinian Church in Britain, for the British Bishops 
had undisputed seats in the great Church Councils, 
Pope Leo Xni.,in his recent declaration concerning the 
invalidity of Anglican Orders conveniently^ loses sight 
of these indisputable facts of history. 

In view of all this, we may well ask with a writer in 
one of the periodicals : Are Romanists sincere w^hen 



ROMAK ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE, 251 

they allege, as an historical fact, that Henry YIII. was 
the founder of the Enghsh Church? Alfonso M. Lig- 
uori, a Doctor of the Eoman Communion, says in his 
History of Heresies and Their Eefutation, "Mary, 
likewise, proclaimed the innocence of Cardinal Pole, and 
requested Julius III. to send him to England as his leg- 
ate a latere. He arrived soon after, and, at the request 
of the Queen, reconciled the Kingdom again to the 
Church, and absolved it from schism. On the Vigil of 
St. Andrew, a. d. 1554, he confirmed in their Sees the 
Catholic Bishops, though installed in the time of the 
schism, and recognized the new Sees established by 
Henry. All this was confirmed by Paul IV." In this 
proclamation, the Bishops are styled "Catholic," and 
the Anglican Church is represented as beiug in schism, 
but no mention of Henry being the founder of the Eng- 
lish Church is made, although this would have been the 
proper time to have asserted the fact, if such were the 
case. Thus the Popes and Roman historians being wit- 
nesses, the Church of England is a true branch of the 
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostohc Church of Christ. 

This apologetic dissertation concerning the Mother 
Church of our race would be incomplete without some 
fuller reference to two objections which are constantly 
urged against her. The first of these is that she was 
founded, or at least reformed by the adulterous Henry 
VIII., and the second, that her reformation was so in- 
complete that she is still permeated with Romanism. 

1. Of course, educated persons know that only the 
grossly ignorant or dishonest can maintain that Henry 
VIII. founded the present Church of England, and so 
this objection has no weight with them. They see that 
the great Tudor, who lived less than four hundred 



252 



THE MOTHEK CHUECH OF ENGLAND. 



years ago, could not have founded a Church that, as an 
overwhelroing accumulation of evidence proves, has 
had a continuous existence from the present day back 
through the ages, one thousand seven hundred years, 
to the very threshold of the time of the Apostles. ' 

It must, however, be admitted that Henry YIII. did 
have a great deal to do with ridding the Church of 
Papal interference, and that the part he took would 
perhaps not have been taken but for his iniquitous 
matrimonial schemes. But when our objectors go so 
far as to leave the impression that but for the King's 
guilty love for Anne Boleyn, there would have been no 
Reformation in England, and that the Church would 
have continued under the tyranny of Eome, they take 
an untenable position. It must be evident to all who 
have even a cursory knowledge of the drift of events in 
England, that the rupture could not have been much 
longer deferred. Henry VIII. was simply the instru- 
ment in God's hands for setting in operation and guid- 
ing the Eeformation, and except in his determination 
to get rid of the Pope's usurped authority in England, 
he was a verj- unwilling tool of Providence. In view 
of the fact that the Pope dubbed him "Defender of 
the [Roman Catholic] Faith" for a tractate which he 
wrote against the German Reformation, and that he 
left money for the saying of masses forever for his soul, 
it is highly ridiculous to attribute the Anglican Re- 
formation to him. If Henry YIII. hanged the men who 
beheved in the Pope, he burned ahve those who disbe- 
lieved in transubstantiation and auricular confession. 
His laws would have sent to the stake every Bishop, 
Priest and Deacon who accepts the Anglican Prayer 
Book. 

If our ancestors could have had the choosing of the 
instrument, they doubtless would hav^e chosen a more 



KO^HAX EXCEOACHMENTS AND THEIR EESISTAJSTCE. 253 

exemplary man, but the choice could hardly have 
fallen upon a better King. For it is universally con- 
ceded that, notwithstanding his moral imperfections, 
Henry YIII. was one of the ablest and most popular 
monarchs who ever occupied the English throne, or, in 
fact, that of any other nation. He carried the coun- 
try safel}^, without massacre and without a general 
civil war, through the most tremendous crisis that 
ever existed in England." The uneducated and un- 
principled Romanist or Denominationalist who pours 
contempt upon the English Church and her American 
Sister because of the domestic faults of Henry YIII. 
should in justice not altogether lose sight of his regal 
virtues. Nor must they be allowed to forget that 
his character compares very favorably with that of 
some of the great Puritan leaders and is positively 
respectable in comparison with that of many of the 
Popes. 

So far as Puritanism is concerned, take its great hero, 
Oliver Cromwell. His memory to this day is held in 
bitter execration throughout England and especially 
in Ireland where his ruthless butcheries w^ere such as to 
be almost without parallel in the annals of inhumanity. 
He landed in Dublin vdth an army in a.d. 1649. Several 
battles were fought, and men, women and children were 
indiscriminately slaughtered. Houses were pillaged 
and burned; Churches desecrated, and terror reigned 
w^herever he went. For a long time the Irish would 
say: "The curse of Cromwell upon you," when they 
desired an expression of hatred. In view^ of this, and 
much more of which it is a piece, the several writers 
of first rank who denounce him as a bloody tyrant 
w^ould seem to have truth on their side. Certainly 
his military cruelties brought more suffering and sorrow 
to the world than that which resulted from the conju- 



254 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAXD. 



gal infidelities of Henry VIII. . And as for Romanism, 
Pope John XII., was convicted by an Italian Synod of 
almost every enormity to be found in the catalogue 
of crime. During the tenth century about thirty Pon- 
tiffs occupied the Papal chair. Each succeeding one sur- 
passed, if possible, his predecessor in abominable crimes. 
The mind sickens in reviewing the enormities of these 
monsters of wickedness.* Even King Edgar, who, though 
not a severe moralist, was a saint if compared with the 
Pontiffs of his time, has recorded his testimony against 
them. "We see in Eome," he says, "only debauchery, 
licentiousness, and drunkenness ; the houses of Priests 
are the shameful abodes of harlots, and of worse than 
these. In the dwelling of the Pope, they gamble by 
night and by day. Instead of fastings and prayers, 
they give place to bacchanalian songs, lascivious 
dances, and the debauchery of Messalina." 

It should be remembered also that Henry YIII. was 
not the only very imperfect man whom God has been 
pleased to use to accomphsh His great purposes. Jehu, 
one of the greatest reformers among all the Kings of 
Israel, fell far short of perfection. " Constantine estab- 
lished Christianity in the Roman Empire and Napoleon 
restored it in France, yet who cavils at either of these 
great changes on account of the want of personal sanc- 
tity in the authors." We have, therefore, in the case of 
Henry YIIL, only one of many historical instances 
which illustrate the truth that God's ways are not 
man's ways, and show how he causes the wrath of man 
to praise Him, and brings good out of evil. 

But really, no country has upon the whole more rea- 
son than England to be proud of those who w^ere con- 
spicuous in bringing about its reformation. If the ' 
political part of it was wrought by Henry YIIL, the 

*Lecture II. 



ROMAN ENCEOACHMENTS A^B THEIR RESISTANCE. 255 



doctrinal and spiritual parts were accomplished by such 
men as Latimer, Eidley, Cranmer, Je^Yel, Parker, Tay- 
lor, Hooker, and a host of the like, who for their piety, 
and learning, and martyr heroism, shine as bright stars 
in the Christian firmament. "After all," says the fair- 
minded Evangelist, Barnes, "rail at her as we will, there 
is no Church on earth like the Church of England ; no 
holy army of martyrs like to hers; no ritual so pure 
and uplifting; no giants of theology like hers; no his- 
tory 6n the whole so honorable." 

2. As to the objection that the English Reformation 
did not go far enough, we may say that our plan con- 
templates a fuller answer in another connection than 
there is space for here.* For the present, therefore, we 
shall content ourselves with an appeal to representa- 
tive men both within and outside of the Anglican Com- 
munion. And first, there are the great English theolo- 
gians, whose wTitings are universally acknowledged to 
be the bulwark of the Reformation, Pearson and But- 
ler—the latter was brought up in non-conformity, but 
left it— and Barrow, and Bull, and Beveridge, and Chil- 
lingworth, and Taylor, and Ussher, and Leighton, and 
Tillotson, illustrious divines, whose fohos form the 
library to which Denominationalists as well as Episco- 
palians go for sound doctrine, and for arguments with 
which to refute Roman controversialists. Then, com- 
ing down towards our owm time, there are such pro- 
found scholars as Arnold, Maurice, Whately, Alford, 
Lightfoot, Stanley, Yaughan, and many contempo- 
raries of almost equal endowments and learning who 
were, if we are to believe the representations of Denom- 
inationalists, so blind and ignorant as not to perceive 
that by remaining in the English Church they were cast- 
ing the weight of their immense infiuence on the side of 

*Lecture VI. 



256 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



deadly error. Nor will we allow those who accuse us 
of Romanism to pass over our Laity such as Glad- 
stone, Hatherley, Selborne, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, 
Gordon, Salisbury, Balfour, and our own George Wash- 
ington, Patrick Henry, Peyton Randolph, Alexander 
Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, John Marshall, 
and a host of others whose high conscientiousness, 
taken in connection with their well-known Protestant 
sympathies, forbid us to beheve that they would have 
clung so firmly and lovingly to the EngUsh and Ameri- 
can Episcopal Churches if these were, as is affirmed, 
tainted to the core with Roman and Mediaeval corrup- 
tions. On the contrary, nothing can be more certain 
than that, if our criticisers be right, the great majority 
of them would have found their way into one or another 
of the numerous non-Episcopal bodies of Christians. 

Moreover, the brightest hghts that non-Episcopal • 
Protestantism has produced have given their unquali- 
fied indorsement to the English Reformation. The re- 
nowned Casaubon of Geneva said : " Unless I am deceived, 
the most perfect part of the whole Reformation is in 
England, where the study of antiquitj^ flourishes along 
with the study of truth." And this is the testimony of 
the greatest jurist and theologian of the seventeenth 
century, Hugo Grotius, of Holland : "It is clear to me 
that the English Liturgies, the custom of the laying on 
of hands on those arriving at years of discretion in 
memory of their Baptism, the regimen of Bishops, the 
Presbyteries composed of Clergy alone, with many other 
things of the same kind, agree with the customs of the 
ancient Church, from which we cannot deny that in 
France and Belgium we have departed." And surely 
no American will again accuse the Episcopal Church 
of Romanism after reading the following from the im- 
mortal Puritan fathers: "The humble request of his 



ROMAN ENCROACHMENTS AND THEIR RESISTANCE. 257 



Majesty's loyal subjects, to the rest of their brethren in 
and out of the Church of England : We esteem it our 
honor to call the Church of England, from whence we 
rise, our dear Mother, ever acknowledging that such 
hope and part as we have obtained in the common sal- 
vation, we have received in her bosom and sucked it 
from her breasts." But the witness of John Wesley will 
be even more convincing to many objectors. There is 
the testimony of his hfe-long adherence to the Church 
and his constant refusal to allow the Methodists to sep- 
arate from her. Besides we have his express words 
uttered as late as the seventy-seventh year of his age : 
"Having had an opportunity of seeing several of the 
Churches abroad, and having deeply considered the 
several sorts of Dissenters at home, I am fully con- 
vinced that our own Church [the Church of England] 
with all her blemishes, is nearer the Scriptural plan 
than any other in Europe." 

The Faith and worship of the English and American 
Episcopal Churches are as free from error and supersti- 
tion as those of any non-Episcopal Denomination. 
Those who had the greatest influence in the Reforma- 
tion of the Church of England, had reference in all they 
did to the ancient, uncorrupted Church. Dr. Jewel, 
Bishop of Salisbury, a chief reformer, says: "We are 
come as near as we possibly could to the Church of the 
Apostles and the old Catholic Bishops and Fathers, and 
have directed according to their customs, not only our 
Doctrine, but also the Sacraments and forms of Com- 
mon Prayer." " I protest," said Cranmer, " that it was 
never in my mind to write, speak, or understand any- 
thing, but what I have learned of the Sacred Scriptures 
and of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ from the be- 
ginning ; and also, according to the exposition of the most 
holy and learned Fathers and Martyrs of the Church." 

C. A.— 17 



258 



THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 



The guiding principle of Cranmer, Eidley, Hooker, Bull, 
Thorndike, and all the galaxy of the English Reforma- 
tion leaders, is also well expressed in the following 
passage from Bishop Beveridge: When this, our Eng- 
lish Church, through long communion with the Ro- 
man Church, had contracted hke stains with her, from 
Avhich it Avas necessary that it should be cleansed, they 
who took that excellent and very necessary work in 
hand, fearing that they, like others, might rush from 
one extreme to the other, removed indeed those things, 
as well doctrines as ceremonies, which the Roman 
Church had newly and insensibly superinduced, and, as 
was fit, abrogated them utterly. Yet, notwithstanding, 
whatever things had been at all times believed and ob- 
served by all Churches in all places, those things they 
most religiously took care not so to abolish with them. 
Hence, therefore, these first reformers of this particular 
Church directed the whole line of that Reformation 
which they undertook, according to the rules of the 
whole or Universal Church, casting away those things 
only which had been either unheard of, or rejected by the 
Universal Church, but most religiously retaining those 
things which they saw equally corroborated by the 
consent of the Universal Church." 

If there were two or more Churches that could make 
in other respects equally good claims to our allegiance, 
it would certainly appear to be the will of God that we 
should identify ourselves with the one whose govern^ 
ment, doctrine, and worship are most closely patterned 
after the Church of the earliest and purest times. As 
things now are, Americans who choose their Church re- 
lationship with reference to the primitive model, must 
give the preference to the Episcopal Church. 



The Church for Americans. 



LECTURE V. 

THE A.nERlCAN CMURCH. 

I. The Pee-Coloxial Chuech. 
II. The Coloxial Chuech. 
III. The Natioxal Chuech. 



(259) 



AUTHORITIES. 



Anderson, History of the Colonial Church. (3 Vols.) 
Beaedsley, Life and Correspondence of Bishop Seabury. 
Benham, Short History of the Episcopal Church in America. 
Brand, Life of Bishop Whittingham. (2 Tols.) 
Coleman, Bp., The Church in America. 

Hawks, Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United 
States of America. 

Leonard, Bp., Witness of the American Church to pure Chris- 
tianity. 

]\IcCoNNELL, History of the American Episcopal Church. 
McYickar, Professional Years of Bishop Hobart. 
Perry, Bp., The History of the American Episcopal Church. 
(2 Vols.) 

Smith, The Church in the New Land. 
Stone, Memoir of Bishop Griswold. 
Ward, Bishop William White. 

Wilberforce, Bp., History of the American Episcopal Church. 
White, Bp., Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America from its organization to the present day. 
Wordsworth, Canon, Theophilus Americanus. 

PAMPHLETS. 

Perry, Bp., The Faith of the Framers of the Constitution of the 
United States. 

Perry, Bp., The Faith of the Signers of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. 
Perry, Bp., Historical Sketch. 

Eoyce, Historical Sketches of the Church of England and the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. 



(260) 



The American Church. 



WE have seen that the Church of England is a 
branch of the Church of Christ * A review of 
the history of the American Episcopal Church 
will now be necessary in order to determine whether or 
not the connection between the two is such as to justify 
the conclusion that in becoming or remaining an Episco- 
palian, a person will be doing the will of Christ by 
identifying himself with His Church. 



I. 

THE PRE-COLOXIAL CHURCH. 

THIS period extended through the one hundred and 
ten years from the discovery of the American 
Continent by John Cabot in a. d. 1497, to the 
establishment of the first permanent colony in the year 
1607. Before the planting of the Jamestown col- 
ony the Church had no organized form. It is, how- 
ever, matter of record that the Cabots, Drake, Frob- 
isher, Cavandish, and others who were the first discov- 
erers, explorers and colonizers of various parts of the 
North American Continent, were accompanied by 
Priests of the Church of England, who conducted daily 
Morning and Evening Prayer whether on ship, or land. 
In A. D. 1579, on the first Sunday after Trinity, 
Francis Fletcher, Drake's chaplain, conducted Service, 
preached and administered the Holy Communion on the 

*Lecture IV. 

(261) 



262 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



shore of a '^fayre and good baye," which is supposed to 
be Drake's Bay, about thirty miles from San Francisco. 
These are the first recorded Christian Services held 
within the present hmits of the United States. They are 
commemorated by the massive and elaborately carved 
" Prayer Book Cross " of granite placed in Golden Gate * 
Park, San Francisco, by the late Mr. George W. Childs, 
of Philadelphia. 

It is somewhat uncertain when the first Baptism was 
administered in this country. The honor is claimed on 
behalf of two places and for both Romanists and Angli- 
cans. The child of an Indian chief is said by some to 
have been baptized in the year 1570, in Virginia, by 
Quiros, a Jesuit— one of a small colony of missionaries 
who settled in the wilderness, but after a few years were 
all murdered by the natives. Others maintain, with a 
greater show of probability, that the converted chief, 
Manteo, and Virginia Dare, the first English child born 
in America, baptized, respectively, on the Ninth and the 
Tenth Sundays after Trinity, August 13 and 20, 1587, 
on the Island of Roanoke, by the chaplain of Raleigh's 
second colony, were the first recipients of the Sacrament 
of Regeneration. Dr. McConnell confidently asserts: 
''These were the first fruits, not only of the Church of 
England, but of Christianity in the Colonies." 

But there was no continuity in the Church's life for 
more than a quarter of a century later. The pre- 
colonial Church either came and went with the adven- 
turesome seamen, or lingered only while the several 
abortive attempts at colonization lasted. So devoid of 
stability and the essential equipments was it that call- 
ing it a Church is only possible by a very broad apphca- 
tion of our Lord's words: "Where two or three are 
gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst 
of them." 



n. 

THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 

THE American Church mav be said to date its 
organized existence from the establishment of 
the first permanent colony at Jamestown, Yir- 
^nia, A. D. 1607. The distinguished honor of making 
the beginning of this Church ds due to the Kev. Robert 
Hunt who conducted daily Morning and Evening 
Prayer, preached twice every Sunday, and administered 
the "^Holy Communion quarterly. The scene as it is 
briefly described in the quaint phraseology of the time, 
presents to the imagination a striking picture of the 
first American ChurcOi edifice and worshipping congre- 
gation. We did hang an awning to the trees to shield 
us from the sun, our walls were rails of wood, our seats 
unhewed trees, our pulpit a bar of wood." Here on an 
equally rustic Altar occurred the first recorded celebra- 
tion on the Atlantic seaboard of the Holy Eucharist 
according to the English Liturgy. This was June 21, 
the Third Sunday after Trinity, five weeks after landing. 

The colony was more than once prevented from 
breaking up bv dissension, through the reconciling infiu- 
ence of Mr. Hunt. The Rev. Alexander Whittaker, 
styled the Apostle to the North American Indian, was 
Hunt's worthy successor. It was he who baptized the 
celebrated Pocahontas in a. d. 1611. In a. d. 1619, the 
first elective assembly of the New World met in the 
Jamestown Church. It was opened with a Prayer Book 
Collect by one of the Church's Clergy. Its first act was 

(263) 



264 



THE AMEEICAN CHUKCH. 



a provision for the protection of the Indian from op- 
pression, and the second for the estabHshment of a 
university. Thus the foundation of our Hepublican 
form of government was laid a year before the famous 
"Mayflower" left England with the first of the Pilgrim 
colonists. Our Colonial Church was established seven 
years before the Holland-Dutch came to New York, 
eleven years before the much-belauded Massachusetts 
Bay Puritans landed, and twenty-seven years before 
Lord Baltimore came with the first colony of Roman- 
ists. From all this it wiW be seen that the Episcopal 
Church is justly entitled to the distinction which her 
members often claim for her of being denominated the 
American Church," or ''the Church." This is not be- 
cause she is the largest body of Christians in the coun- 
try, nor because we claim her to be the only true branch 
of the Apostolic Church of Christ, but owing to the fact 
that she was the first Church to cHebrate the Christian 
worship and Sacraments on our shores as she was also 
the Church of the first permanent settlers within the 
limits of the thirteen original states. It must be re- 
membered, also, that, as Bishop Coleman points out, 
she was "by charter and law established in the older 
colonies; that more than any other Ecclesiastical 
organization she had to do with constituting the na- 
tion, and, in the period of the Civil War, with its main- 
tenance and reunion; and that, while conservative and 
Catholic in her character, she yet is distinctively Amer- 
ican in spirit." 

But even if our pretension were not supported by 
any of these interesting considerations, it would be 
abundantly justified by the simple fact that this is an 
English-speaking nation, and ours is preeminently the 
Church of the English-speaking race. According to 
the idea which prevails among us, it is necessary iu 



THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 



265 



order to justify our existence, for us to claim that the 
Episcopal Church is the Church of the American people. 
To us it seems to have been plainly the intention of the 
Master to establish one Church only which was to be 
continued by the Successors of the Apostles, called Bish- 
ops. Each Bishop is, by virtue of his Apostolic authority, 
conveyed through Canonical Consecration by successors 
of the Apostles, supreme in his own Jurisdiction. More- 
over, the great Ecumenical Councils made provision for 
the protection of this supremacy. Therefore, there can 
be only one Bishop in a given Diocese, and one Church 
in a Nation. If two or more bodies exist with separate 
officers, only one can be the right and lawful Church of 
Christ, the others must be usurpers or schismatics. Our 
claim to be the Church in the United States having the 
right to exclusive allegiance is canonically justified chiefly 
by the fact that this country was originally the posses- 
sion of the Enghsh Nation, and that the Enghsh tongue 
and laws were adopted by the common consent of the 
American people. The Church of England which conse- 
crated and gave us our Bishops, traces its descent from 
the Apostles of our Lord and possesses the independence 
that was originally conferred upon Her, and all other 
National Churches. No civil officer can produce a more 
legitimate authority than can a Bishop of the Episco- 
pal Church. Therefore this is the American Church. 

The colonial Church was for the most part under the 
nominal supervision of the Bishop of London. But this 
was a very unsatisfactory arrangement. It necessitated 
an expensive and perilous voyage of six thousand miles 
on the part of candidates for Holy Orders. This kept 
many from applying at all, and of the few whose conse- 
crated zeal impelled them forward, a large proportion 
perished by shipwreck, or died abroad by one or an- 
other of the pestilential diseases, so common a century 



266 



THE AMERICAX CHUECH. 



or two ago iu all parts of Europe. Under these circum- 
stances it was impossible to secure an adequate staff of 
native-born Clergymen. The Church was, therefore, 
largeh^ dependent upon recruits from England. And, 
unfortunately, of the few who came, some were either 
adventurers or persons who had left home to avoid dis- 
cipline for some misdemeanor. Laws had to be made to 
restrain such from even the gross vices of gambling and 
drunkenness, and to force them to discharge the duties 
they were neglecting. As, however, the Church here was 
practically without a head, these unworthy ministers 
escaped the penalties and continued to work havoc 
wherever they went. 

It is related that a clergyman on his way to Mary- 
land, or purposing to emigrate, died. His valet as- 
sumed the clerical garb of his master, took possession 
of his letters of Orders, his stock of sermons and other 
papers, continued the journey to Maryland, and there, 
under the name of the dead clergyman, had charge of a 
parish for a long time. This outrage also occurred : A 
known profligate in Orders obtained, through family 
influence, an important parish. The incensed congre- 
gation rose up and declared that he should not come 
among them. They accordingly barred the windows 
and put extra locks on the doors of the Church. But 
the}^ had to deal with a resolute man. A window was 
forced, and when the good people entered through the 
opened door they found their pastor in the desk, his 
opened Prayer Book flanked on either side by a pistol, 
and he ready to address them as ^'Dearly beloved 
brethren." Having "read himself in," his future concern 
was only the taxes collected for the support of religion. 

The Northern Clergy were of the most exemplary 
character. But they were few, and suffered much perse- 
cution from the Puritans, who ''assumed the right of 



THE COLONIAL CHUECH. 



267 



taxing all for the support of their ministers and meet- 
ing-houses; and, wherever they could gain over the 
local Governor to their persuasion, proceeded to en- 
force their claim with signal violence." "With mel- 
ancholy hearts," a member of the "Church" at Wal- 
lingford, Connecticut, wrote home to complain, "have 
divers of us been imprisoned, and our goods from 
year to year distrained for taxes levied for the build- 
ing and supporting of meeting-houses." As late as the 
year 1750, an old man, who had been long a member 
of the Church, was whipped publicly for not attend- 
ing meeting. Dr. Peters, a contemporaneous writer of 
Colonial History, relates that, in the same year "an 
Episcopal Clergyman, born and educated in England, 
who had been in Holy Orders above twenty years, once 
broke their Sabbatical law by combing a discomposed 
lock of hair on the top of his wig ; at another time, by 
making a humming noise, which they called w^histling; 
at a third time, by walking too fast from Church ; at a 
fourth, by running into a Church when it rained ; at a 
fifth, by walking in his garden and picking a bunch of 
grapes ; for which several crimes he was complained of 
by the Grand Jury, and a warrant granted against him, 
was seized, brought to trial, and made to pay a consid- 
erable sum of money." At Hartford, one of the judges 
of the county court, assisted by the mob, pulled down a 
rising Church, and with the stones built a house for 
his son. Mr. Morton, a staunch Churchman of Massa- 
chusetts, was persecuted violently, all the more because 
of the satires contained in his "New English Canaan." 
He died in England from the effects of his imprisonment 
at Boston. 

Owing to the many disadvantages growing out of 
the dependence upon a foreign Episcopate, repeated and 
persevering efforts were made to secure the Consecration 



268 



THE AMEEICAX CHUECH. 



of Bishops for this countrv. but without avail. The 
celebrated English philanthropist. Granville Sharp, 
used his gi^eat influence on behalf of the neoiected sheep 
of the American wilderness, and almost succeeded in 
bringing about the Consecration of chief shepherds for 
them. Twice," says the author of ■• The Professional 
Tears of Bishop Hobart." "was the goodly plan fi-us- 
trated when on the very point of completion. In the 
reign of Charles II.. the patent was actually made out. 
appointing Eev. Dr. Alexander Murray, a good man. 
and a companion of the King's exile. Bishop of Vir- 
ginia, with a general charge over the other provinces : 
but the scheme fell through by a change of ministry, 
and what Clarendon had done, the -Cabal" revoked, 
though the deeper cause probably was. that the King, 
himself, had no hean in the matter, A second time, in 
the reign of Anne, was provision made, a scheme of 
four American Bishoprics adopted, and certain govern- 
ment lands in the Island of St. Kitts actually sold for 
theii^ endowment. The death of the Queen cut this 
short, and although subsequently approved and recom- 
mended by the first and ablest men of the Church, hy 
Berkeley. Butler. Gibson, Sherlock, and. above alb by 
the meekest of Prelates. Archbishop Seeker, it was never 
carried into effect." ••At one time." writes Canon 
Perry, in his -'History of the Church of England/' 
'-there were two non-juring Bishops in America, namely. 
Dr. Pi. Welton, and Dr. J. Talbot, a. d. 1722, the former 
in Philadelphia, tlie latter in Burlington. N. J., but 
they were not allowed to exercise Episcopal functions, 
except by stealth, and the government soon afterwards 
interfered with, and put an entire stop to, all action on 
their part." 

The failure to secure the Episcopacy was chiefly due 
to the political influence of the Puritanical sects. ' But 



THE COLOXIAL CHUECH. 



269 



strange as it may appear,, some of tlie Prelates them- 
selves objected to tlie giving of the Episcopate to " the 
New World,"' upon the ground that there could be no 
adequate provision made in such a barbarous country 
for the due support of Bishops in the state and dignity 
which, according to their conception, properly belong 
to them. As Dr. McConnell observes: "The idea of a 
Bishop in the American wilderness was as grotesque to 
them as now would be the suggestion of a professor of 
higher mathematics among the Zulus." It is surpass- 
ingly strange that their ''lordships,'- who for the most 
part were really good and learned men, should so far 
have been bhnded by their environment as altogether 
to lose sight of the simphcity of the Apostolic and 
primitive Episcopate. But, in view of the unfortu- 
nate experience of our fathers, it is even more inexplica- 
ble that the multiplication of Bishops to supply the 
growing needs of the American Church is, at this late 
date, prevented by the survival of the misconceptions 
of our EngUsh forefathers. Large sections, in many 
of our states and territories, are at this time de- 
prived of adequate Episcopal ministrations because 
they have not the ability to make •'ample provision" 
for the support of a chief shepherd. An able edi- 
torial critic thus puts the unscriptural and unjustifi- 
able character of the legislation regulating the crea- 
tion of new Dioceses and Missionary Jurisdictions: 
"It is the fashion to talk of the Episcopate as dis- 
tinctively the' Missionary Order: and so it ought to 
be; but the Constitution of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church forbids it to be so unless on conditions 
at which the Apostles of Jesus Christ— men who were 
sent without scrip for their journey, and without gold, 
silver, or even brass in their purses— would have been 
amazed.'"' 



270 



THE AMEEICAX CHUECH. 



^ But liaTing, in accord with their inherited ideas, con- 
ceived this objection against responding to the appeal 
of the Colonial Church, the English Bishops were doubt- 
less confirmed in it by the fact that the Clergy already 
in the field were paid in tobacco instead of in gold, and 
that they experienced considerable difficulty in collect- 
ing eyen the scanty amount of that indigenous weed 
which had been promised. The Clergy often had occa- 
sion to complain that the tobacco giyen them in pay- 
ment for their salaries was inferior in quahty. ^The 
stipends were fixed in some Parishes at sixteen thousand 
pounds of tobacco per annum. This would realize, if 
the article were of the best grade, the equivalent of 
between four and five hundred dollars of our money, 
upon which sum the Rectors are said to have lived, even 
when married, very comfortably. Why could not a 
Bishop have done the same ? 



Xo wonder that under these circumstances the 
Church was in an almost hopelessly depressed condi- 
tion. At the vSouth she was nearly ruined by the irreg- 
ularities growing out of the want of Episcopal over- 
sight, while to the Xorthward she was downtrodden 
and all but crushed out by Puritanism. But there were 
many notable exceptions among the Southerners, of 
Clergymen -and Laymen who were examples of piety 
and self-sacrificing devotion. And in the course of time 
there was also an unmistakable reaction against North- 
ern Puritanism. 

This reactionary movement started in the year 1722, 
among the faculty and graduates of Yale College. 
Seven of these, all professors, Congregational or Pres- 
b^iierian ministers, were accustomed to meet together 
for the purpose of studying and discussing the claims of 



THE C0L0I!^IAL CHIJECH. 



271 



the Episcopal Church. These meetings grew out of a 
Prayer Book, which many years before had providen- 
tially fallen into the hands of President Cutler, and fronri 
the study of certain standard works of the Anglican 
Divines, contributed by the celebrated Dean Berkeley, to 
the College library. One of them tells us that not a sin- 
gle path was left untrodden, which seemed likely to lead 
to fresh sources of knowledge. The best writers on 
either side of the controversy were carefully consulted, 
and their arguments deliberately discussed and weighed. 
As far as temporal ease and prospects were concerned, 
it would have been a welcome result to these inquirers, 
had they found the principles of Congregational gov- 
ernment to agree, in their judgment, with those of the 
primitive Church of Christ. Such a conclusion would 
have retained them in the peaceful discharge of their ac- 
customed duties, and have preserved unbroken the 
cords of love which bound them to their kindred, 
friends and country. But the enjoyment of the present 
ease would cease to be a blessing, if purchased at the 
cost of truth ; and come therefore what might, the dic- 
tates of conscience were to be obeyed. When, therefore, 
after long study and many conferences, they had fully 
made up their minds as to the truth of the Anglican 
Church's position, they met the trustees of Yale College 
and astonished them beyond measure by reading the 
following address : 

" To the Rev. Mr. Andrew and Mr. Woodhridge and others, our Rev- 
erend Fathers and Brethren, present in the Library of Yale College 
this 13th of September, 1122. 

"Eeverend Gentlemen: — Having represented to 
you the difficulties which we labor under, in relation to 
our continuance out of the visible communion of an 
Episcopal Church, and a state of seeming opposition 
thereto, either as private Christians, or as officers, 
and so being insisted on by some of you, after our 



272 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



repeated declmings of it, that we should sum up our case 
m writing, we do, though with great reluctance, fearino- 
the consequences of it, submit to, and comply with it' 
and signify to you that some of us doubt the validity' 
and the rest of us are more fully persuaded of the inva- 
lidity of Presbyterian Ordination, in opposition to Epis- 
copal ; and should be heartily thankful to God and nian 
It we may receive from them satisfaction herein ; and 
shall be willing to embrace your good counsels and in- 
structions m relation to this important affair, as far as 
(jod shall direct and dispose us to do." 
Signed, Timothy Cutler, 

[President of Yale College.] 

John Hart, 1 
Samuel Whittlesey, 

Jared Eliot, I Professors and 

J AMES WetmorE, ( Ministers. 

Samuel Johnson, 
Daniel Brown, 

When this declaration was made there was only one 
of our Clergymen in all Connecticut. In the course of 
the next nlonth, at the suggestion of the Governor of 
the Colony, there was a public discussion between its 
signers and the amazed Puritans. At this debate Pres- 
byterians contended that the Apostles, in the nature of 
things, could have no successors, and that the title 
Bishop, which Episcopalians restrict to those whom 
they conceive to be invested with Apostolic authority, 
is used in the Epistles as a synonym of Presbyter or 
Elder. It was shown by the converts to Episcopacy, 
that the first of these assertions is a misleading half 
truth. It is of course true that the Apostles could not 
transmit to successors their blessed personal experience 
as the privileged Disciples of the Lord, their Pentecostal 
illumination and inspiration, their ability to bear the 
testimony of eye-witnesses to the Resurrection and their 
power to work miracles. But the instances of St. 
Matthias and St. Paul prove that the Apostolic office 



THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 



273 



was not limited as to number, or person, or time, for 
these were not of the twelve first selected by Christ, and 
yet they were confessedly none the less Apostles. 

It appears, therefore, from Scripturethat the Apostles 
could and did perpetuate their office by delegating their 
authority to those who should assist and succeed them 
in the administration of the Church. To argue the im- 
possibility of this, as the Presbyterians do, upon the 
ground of the supernatural endowments of the Apostles 
and their close relationship to our Lord, is as incon- 
sistent and contrary to human experience as it would 
be to insist that kings and princes can have no succes- 
sors, because they cannot convey their personality to 
others. Moreover, according to this hypothesis the 
Elders and Deacons could have no successors, for they 
also worked miracles. The remark of Hooker expresses 
the truth respecting this matter: "In some things 
every Presbyter, in some things only Bishops, in some- 
things neither the one nor the other, are the Apostles ' 
successors." 

The circumstance of Presbyters sometimes being 
called Bishops in the New Testament and vice versa, 
does no more prove that there was no dictinction in 
oflfice and authorit}^, than the calling of the Apostles 
Elders places them upon a level with the Presbytery. 
They also called themselves Deacons. Are we therefore 
to conclude that the Apostolate and Diaconate a^^e the 
same office in theChurch of the New Testament? Bishop 
means overseer or superintendent. The confusion arises 
from losing sight of the fact that Bishop is a title com- 
mon to the members of both the Apostleship and Pres- 
bytership. These in their respective spheres were 
rulers. The Presbyter-bishops were local, parochial 
superintendents. The Apostle-bishops were General, Dio- 
cesan or Metropolitan superintendents. The difference 

C. A— 18 



274 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



between the Presbyterian and Apostolic Bishops appears 
very plainly in ^yhat St. Paul had to say to the repre- 
sentatives of both Orders who were stationed at Eph- 
esus. Upon comparing Acts 20: 28-36 with I Tim- 
othy 5: 1, 19-22, and II Timothy 2: 2, it will be 
observed that the duties required of them, respectively, 
correspond exactly with the requirements of the Epis- 
copal Church from the second and third Orders of her 
ministry. The Presbyter-bishops were charged with 
the feeding, protection and correction of particular 
flocks. The Apostle-bishops were exhorted to seek out 
and prepare fit men for the Holy Orders ; to ordain 
those who should be found worthy, and to administer 
discipKne to the Clergy who should be guilty of irregular 
hfe or heretical teaching. In order to avoid confusion 
it was not very long before Presbyters ceased to be 
called Bishops, and the title Avas reserved exclusively 
for the successors of the Apostles. This rests upon the 
testimony of the early Fathers who tell us that ''those 
who in their day were called Bishops were first called 
Apostles." "It was precisely as if, by the common con- 
sent of the American people, springing from gratitude 
for the services, a.nd veneration for the memory, of 
Washington, it should be determined, for the future, to 
appropriate to him alone the title of president; and to 
all his successors in the presidential ofiice created by 
the constitution, what is now regarded as the less dig- 
nified name of governor. It would not abstract one 
iota from the constitutional privileges and powers 
attached to the office itself." 

Thus the representatives of Presbyterianism at the 
famous Yale debate found that "their chief argument, 
from the different uses of the words Bishop and Presby- 
ter in the New Testament, was met by the incontest- 
able evidence from Scripture of the superintendency of 



THE COLOXIAL CHUECH. 



275 



Timothy over the Clergy and Laity of Ephesus, and of 
Titus over the Church in Crete. The appeal to the his- 
tory of the first and purest centuries of the Church was 
made until at length, as Johnson records it, 'an old 
minister got up and made an harangue against us in 
the declamatory way to raise an odium, but he had not 
gone far before Mr. Saltonstall, the Governor, who, him- 
self, presided, got up and said that he only designed a 
friendly argument," and so put an end to the conference." 

The Puritans regarded this notable defection from 
their ranks with apprehension and dismay. On the oc- 
casion of the celebration of the one hundred and fiftieth 
anniversary of Yale College, President Woolsey, refer- 
ring to the event, said : " I suppose that greater alarm 
would scarcely be awakened now, if the theological 
faculty of the college were to declare for the Church of 
Kome, avow their belief in transubstantiation and pray 
to the Virgin Mary.'' Nor were they mistaken in the 
expectation that others would follow. In the ten 
years subsequent to that memorable declaration more 
than one in ten of the graduates of Yale, who entered 
the ministry, followed the example of Cutler, John- 
son, Brown and Wet more — the leaders of the great 
army of Denominational ministers, who, from that day 
to this, have been drawn into the Church's service. 
So many were the accessions to the Church from Con- 
gregationalism and Presbyterianism that in the year 
1734 the Independents sent a petition drawn up by the 
famous Jonathan Edwards to the Bishop of London, 
in which they represented to his lordship that they did 
not need any more Church missionaries in New England, 
as thej' only drew away from their o\\'n people into the 
Episcopal ranks ; that there was, however, great need 
of missionaries in Carolina and >^ew York, and not 
north of that. 



III. 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 

OUE National Episcopal Church is one of the results 
of the American Revolution. It was not tha.t 
Churchmen generally preferred to be independent 
of the Church of England, but that owing to the temper 
of the times, and the relation of the English Church to 
the State, it was simply impossible to continue the re- 
lationship of a daughter as in colonial times. Hence- 
forth the Church, if it continued at all, must be re- 
garded as an independent sister. But, as a matter of 
fact, it looked very much as if she Avould become extinct. 
Many of her own sons supposed that she was hopelessly 
prostrate, and despaired of her resuscitation. An 
anecdote concerning Chief Justice Marshall, related by 
Bishop Meade, is illustrative of the deep-rooted impres- 
sion which prevailed that the Episcopal Church could 
not be revived even in the stronghold of old Virginia. 
When the Bishop "soon after the estabhshment of the 
Theological Seminary of Virginia, was collecting funds 
for it, he presented the subscription hst to Judge Mar- 
shall. With his usual kindness and liberality, he set 
down a handsome amount, but at the same time said 
he really feared that it was doing an unkindness to the 
young men of Virginia, thus to tempt them to prepare 
for the ministry of a Church which could never be 
revived. He hved, however, to rejoice in seeing the 
failure of his fears and prophecy." 

Even the good, and for the most part, judicious, Dr. 
William White, of Philadelphia, the first Bishop of 
. (276) 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



277 



Pennsylvania, saw no hope for the saving of the feeble 
remnant but in the adoption of the extraordinary 
measures recommended in his famous pamphlet writ- 
ten at the close of the war. In it he advocated, among 
other novelties, the creation of a temporary fictitious 
Episcopate, ordained by Presbyters and Laymen. The 
proposition was regarded and represented, especially 
by the few remaining Northern clergymen, as prepos- 
terous, and there is reason to believe that Dr. AVhite 
himself came to regret this production of his pen. At 
least, on the blank pages in the back of his private 
copy there w^as found, in his handwriting, a note of ex- 
planation and justification which we quote here, be- 
cause of its concise description of the condition and 
prospects of the Church during, and for some time 
after, the struggle for Independence. ^'The circum- 
stances," runs the note, "attached to that publication 
are the following: The congregations of our Church 
throughout the United States were approaching annihi- 
lation. Although' within this city [Philadelphia] three 
Episcopal Clergymen, including the author, were resi- 
dent and officiating, the Churches over the rest of the 
State had become deprived of their Clergy during the 
war, either by death or departure for England. In the 
Eastern States, with two or three exceptions, there was 
a cessation of the exercises of the pulpit, owing to the 
necessary disuse of the prayers for the former civil 
rulers. In Maryland and Virginia, where the Church 
had enjoyed civil establishments, on the ceasing of 
these, the incumbents of the parishes, almost without 
exception, ceased to officiate. Further South the con- 
dition of the Church was not better, to say the least." 

Then follows the aged Bishop's explanation of why 
he thought that the true Apostolic Episcopate could 
not be secured in time to save the Church from ruin. 



278 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



But in the Providence of God this was to be another of 
the many illustrations of the maxim, "Man's extremity 
is God's opportunity." The Blessed Saviour had prom- 
ised that the gates of hell or death should not prevail 
againt His Church. The fact that the Colonial Church 
did not utterly perish in the dark days which imme- 
diately preceded and succeeded the Kevolution, is an 
all but conclusive proof of its Divine and indestructible 
character. No political revolutions, no bigoted perse- 
cutions, no machinations of evil-minded men are suffi- 
cient to crush out the Church of the living God. 

" Crowns and thrones may perish, 
Kingdoms rise and wane, 

But the Church of Jesus constant will remain." 

The Colonial Church had been one, with the Bishop 
of London as the center of unity, but after the Declara- 
tion of Independence the remnant of the Church in each 
colony became a little feeble National Church. As in 
the period of the Heptarchy, there were seven independ- 
ent branches of the Apostolic Church in England, so for 
some time there were thirteen separate and distinct 
little Episcopal Churches in America, as there were also 
thirteen little nations in the country. These were con- 
solidated into one Church and one nation in the same 
year. And it is noteworthy that in many instances the 
same men were, under God, instrumental in the unifica- 
tion of both. Two-thirds of the fra.mers of the Consti- 
tution of the United States were, by birth, by Baptism, 
by family association, Churchmen. Of these nearly one- 
fiffch were deputies in actual attendance upon the early 
General or State Conventions of the Church. This no 
doubt accounts for the striking resemblances between 
the governments of the United States and the Episcopal 
Church about which we shall have occasion to say more. 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



279 



The unity' which was ultimately effected in both 
State and Church was in part the result of a felt neces- 
sity for self-preservation. In the case of the Church it 
was seen to be necessary in order that sufficient influ- 
ence might be exerted to secure the Consecration of 
Bishops by the English Prelates, and to obtain permis- 
sion from Congress for them to take up their abode in 
the several States. The Bishops in England were no 
longer unwilhng to consecrate for America, but, under 
the laws by which their official acts were regulated, 
they could not proceed without special permissory leg- 
islation by Parliament. This, owing partly to piques 
connected with the outcome of the late war, but princi- 
pally to the great power of the Puritan enemies of the 
Church, was exceedingly hard to obtain, and conse- 
quently required all the influence that could be exerted 
by a united effort. 

The want of general cooperation accounts for the 
failure of the Connecticut Clergy to secure Consecration 
from the English Episcopate for their admirable Bishop 
elect. Dr. Samuel Seabury. After many months of fruit- 
less negotiations, he was at last compelled to apply to 
the non-juring Bishops of Scotland, who, having no con- 
nection with the State, were free to exercise the func- 
•tions of their Apostolic office according to discretion. 
They invested Dr. Seabury with the Episcopal char- 
acter at Aberdeen in an upper room on November 14, 
1784, Bishops Kilgour, Petrie and Skinner being the 
Consecrators. "This ever-memorable Service was per- 
formed," says an eye witness, "in the presence of a con- 
siderable number of respectable Clergymen and a great 
number of Laity." 

The Consecration of Dr. Seabury took place about 
two years and a half after the declaration of peace 
and the acknowledgment of the independence of the 



280 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



colonies. It was the most important event which had 
so far happened in the history of the American Episcopal 
Church. Its immediate and direct influence for good 
cannot be exaggerated. It destroyed the argument of 
necessity by which Dr. White, and some Southern 
Churchmen sought to justify their proposition to aban- 
don temporarily the government of the Church by the 
Historic Episcopate. There was now a Bishop in the 
States, and if the canonical number three could not 
possibly be secured, he could by himself consecrate 
ofchers, and so perpetuate the succession, and provide 
for the performance of all the Episcopal offices required 
at any time. If this unfortunately had been necessary, 
we should have been as well off as the Mission which the 
Church of Rome has planted in the United States, for, 
not to mention other irregularities, its Episcopate is 
uncanonically derived through one Consecrator. Their 
first Bishop, Dr. Carroll, arrived in the year 1790, six 
years after Bishop Seabury. About twenty years after- 
wards, without regard to Canon law, which requires 
that there shall be at least three Consecrators, he 
invested four others with the Episcopal office. Thus 
Episcopalians have the legal line of the Apostolic suc- 
cession in this country, while Romanists have not. 
Morover, we have a decided further advantage in that* 
our Episcopacy was first on the ground. According to 
Ecclesiastical Law, we therefore constitute the American 
branch of the Catholic Church, and they are intruding 
schismatics. 

In any case, however, the Episcopal Church would 
be the only logical and legitimate Catholic Church of 
the land, because Americans are English-speaking peo- 
ple, and this is the historic Church of our race. The 
Mother Church of England was established among our 
British ancestors for centuries before they came into 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



281 



contact with Romanism through the Mission of Augus- 
tine, and she was identified with the P^ughsh nation for 
fifteen hundred years before the birth of the oldest of 
the non-Episcopal bodies. Indeed the very existence of 
England as a nation and kingdom is owing to this 
Church which was instrumental in uniting the seven 
tribes into which Anglo-Saxons were divided. Many of 
the Bishoprics and other Ecclesiastical foundations are 
older than the Kingdom, and have held their lands and 
endowments longer than the Crown has possessed its 
property. There was an Archbishop of Canterbury 
three hundred years before there was a King of Eng- 
land. And not only has she been connected with our 
race much longer than any other Christian body, but 
she has now, and, in all probability, always will have by 
far the greater number of English-speaking adherents. 
Moreover, taking it altogether, she is as the foundation 
of the Enghsh nation and civihzation, the most power- 
ful agency for good the world has ever seen. The 
Church of England is, therefore, as preeminently the 
Catholic Church of our race, as the Church of Rome is 
that of the ItaUans, and the Greek Church that of the 
Eastern nations. 

Dr. Seabury's success in obtaining the Episcopate, 
and his safe return were a great joy to the Connecticut 
Clergy. But the Presbyterian ministers appeared to be 
rather alarmed, and "in consequence of his arrival as- 
sumed and gave to one another the style and title of 
Bishop which formerly they reprobated as a remnant 
of Popery." Upon one occasion when the Bishop en- 
tered the hall where the Yale College commencement 
exercises were going on, some one suggested to the 
President that he be invited, out of respect to his office, 
to a seat upon the stage among other distinguished 
persons; to w^hich it was replied: "We are all Bishops 



282 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



here, but if there be room for another, he can occupy 
it." 

Besides removing the plea of necessity for the crea- 
tion of a spurious Episcopacy, Dr. Seabury's Consecra- 
tion by the Scottish Episcopate apparently had the 
effect of mortifying the English Bishops, and of inducing 
them to redouble their efforts to secure the requisite 
Act of Parliament to enable them to consecrate for 
foreign countries without the administration of the 
civil oath. In little less than two years and a half, 
they had not only secured the enabling act, but under 
it, had duly set apart Drs. Provoost and White as 
Bishops, respectively, of New York and Pennsylvania; 
and in A. d. 1790, they Consecrated Dr. James Madison, 
Bishop of Virginia, and so the canonical number neces- 
sary to transmit the Apostolic Succession was at last 
obtained from England. 

Still another direct and important effect of the timely 
action taken by the Northern Clergy in securing a regu- 
larly consecrated Bishop, is seen in the restraint put 
upon the Southerners, who were for making radical 
changes in the Prayer Book, and for materially curtail- 
ing the ancient rights and powers of the American 
Episcopate. That such restraint w^as sorely needed will 
be sufficiently evident by observing that it was pro- 
posed to omit the Nicene Creed from the Liturgy, and 
to deny our Prelates many of the rights and powers 
which have been, by common consent, a prerogative of 
Bishops from the beginning. 

For some time after the Consecration of Drs. Pro- 
voost and White the thirteen State Churches, without 
formal action, grouped themselves into two incipient 
Provinces with the Bishop of Connecticut as the primate 
of the Northern, and the Bishops of New York and 
Pennsylvania at the head of the Southern. Owing to 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



283 



the unfortunate difference of opinion respecting the 
regularity of Dr. Seabury's Consecration, and the South- 
ern prejudice against him, growing out of his Chap- 
laincy in the British Army, and to the dissatisfaction 
of the Connecticut Clergy and Bishop with what they 
regarded as the want of Churchliness in the Southerners, 
it seemed highly probable that two distinct and sep- 
arate Episcopal Churches would be perpetuated in 
America. This to all appearance would certainly have 
been the case but for the wise management of the Rev. 
Dr. Parker and Bishop White. 

Dr. Parker was a distinguished Boston Clergyman, 
who in A. D. J 804 was consecrated Bishop of Massachu- 
setts, but died before performing a single Episcopal act. 
In order to accomplish the union of the Northern and 
Southern Churches, he contrived to have the Rev. Dr. 
Bass elected Bishop of Massachusetts, and an apphca- 
tion made to the General Convention of a. d. 1789, for 
his Consecration by Bishops Seabury, Provoost and 
White. Dr. Bass was not consecrated at that time and 
it is thought that there was no expectation that he 
would be, but the election and application led to the 
unanimous adoption of a resolution in which the valid- 
ity of Bishop Seabury's Consecration was recognized. 
At an adjourned meeting of this Convention, held in 
Philadelphia on September 29, 1789, the Bishop of 
Connecticut was present with his Clerical deputies. But 
they would not subscribe to the constitution previously 
adopted until it had been so far changed as to allow 
the House of Bishops their ancient vetoing power, and 
the privilege of introducing new measures. These 
changes made, the Connecticut delegation affixed their 
signatures, took their seats in the convention, and so 
the Northern and Southern Churches were united. At 
the next General Convention this unity was effectually 



284 



THE AMEEICAN CHURCH. 



cemented by the Consecration of the Rev. Thomas 
John Claggett, D.D., as Bishop of Maryland by the 
Bishops of Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and 
Virginia. Through the first Bishop of Maryland, 
though his was the only Consecration in which Bishop 
Seabury took part, all American Bishops subsequently 
consecrated are able to trace their Apostolic succession 
along both the Scottish and English lines. 

Thus the connection between the Church of England 
and the American Episcopal Church is such that the 
Cathohcity of the latter cannot be denied if it be ad- 
mitted of the former. The history of our Church "in a 
nut-shell" is this: It was founded in Jerusalem, a. d. 
30, by Jesus Christ; was planted in England, possibly 
by St. Paul or one of his pupils; was more or less sub- 
ject to the usurpations of the Bishop of Rome from the 
twelfth to the sixteenth centuries, then freed and re- 
formed; was a mission of the Church of England in 
America until after the Revolution, when it became au- 
tonomous and was called "Protestant Episcopal." It 
therefore possesses authority from Christ Himself, and 
has continuous existence from the days of the Apostles. 

Cardinal Gibbons in his "Faith of Our Fathers" 
says of us, "The very name you bear betrays your re- 
cent birth ; for whoever heard of a Baptist or an Episco- 
pal or any other Protestant Church, prior to the Refor- 
mation?" To this we reply that the Mother Church 
has the same name now that she had before the 
Reformation, Ecclesm Anglicana, the Church of Eng- 
land. The French Roman Cathohc Dupin, a distin- 
guished Doctor of the famous Sorbonne Faculty and 
regius professor of Divinity who flourished some two 
hundred years ago, opens a chapter in his Compendious 
History of the Church, with the question: "In what 
state was the Church of England, and what passed there 



THE NATIONAL CHUECH. 



285 



in the eleventli century?" The Magna Charta which 
dates back three hundred and fifty years before the final 
breaking with the Papacy, speaks of the Church of Eng- 
land and guarantees her liberty and the independence 
of all Ecclesiastical persons. As Dr. Stearns in his 
"Faith of Our Forefathers," a crushing reply to Car- 
dinal Gibbons, says: "It was the Church of England 
then and it is the Church of England now ; it was ' free ' 
then; it is 'free' now. The 'Episcopal' Church in the 
United States is its legitimate offspring, recognized by 
it as such. Its name of ' Episcopal,' therefore, does 
not 'betray' its 'recent bir.th;' nor is that birth 
'recent' in any other sense than that in which the 
birth of every Church, the Roman itself not excepted, in 
a recently discovered country is recent." 

Of course Roman controversialists proceed upon the 
hypothesis that the Church of England was originally a 
mission of the Church of Rome. But we have seen that 
this is not true, and that even if it were, our right to 
independence of Papal dominion would not be affected. 
The argument to the contrary, if carried out to its log- 
ical conclusions, would prove quite too much for our 
adversaries. It would subject Rome to Jerusalem from 
which all Churches have directly or indirectly sprung. 
Or if they contend that as the child is governed by its 
parents rather than the grandparents, so a mission 
must be subjected to the Church that planted it, rather 
than to the mother of all Churches, we point out that by 
this reasoning the Church of Rome should be subject to 
the Church of Greece. For it is now a well-established 
fact that the Greeks planted Christianity in Rome, and 
indeed that the Church there was for more than two cen- 
turies confined to a Grecian colony. Bishop Coxe says, 
" The local Roman Church was for three hundred years a 
mere colony of Greek Christianity." And Dean Stanley, 



286 



THE AMEEICAN CHUECH. 



in his ''Eastern Chur-cli, " writes : "The Greek Church 
reminds us of the time when the tongue, not of Eome 
but of Greece, was the sacred language of Christendom. 
It was a striking remark of the Emperor Napoleon, 
that the introduction of Christianity itself was, in a cer- 
tain sense, the triumph of Greece over Kome. The earlv 
Eoman Church was but a colony of Greek Christians or 
Grecized Jews ; the earliest Fathers of the Western Church 
wrote in Greek; the eai-ly Popes were not Itahans but 
Greeks ; the name of Pope is not Latin but Greek, the 
common and now despised name of every pastor in the 
Eastern Church ; she is the mother, and Rome the daugh- 
ter." Canon Gore observes that "at an unknown 
moment, before the middle of the third century, the 
Church of Rome, which up to that time had been Greek 
in language— alike in her Liturgy and her theology— a 
Greek colony in the Latin city, became, pei-haps some- 
what suddenly, a Latin Church, and in consequence of 
this change of language so complete]}^ forgot her Greek 
past that in the fourth century she was ignorant of an 
accident in her life which the coincidences of modern dis- 
covery have laid open to our eyes." 

The unity so happily effected in a. d. 1789, between 
the Northern and Southern Dioceses, though often more 
or less strained, fortunately has never been broken. Its 
most severe trial was at the opening of our great Civil 
War. The Southern delegations were, of course, not 
present at the General Convention which met in the 
year 1862, but the right of tlie South to representation 
was not questioned, seats were assigned them as in 
times past, and their absence was not recognized by the 
secretary, who never omitted their Dioceses at the roll 
call. They had formed a separate General Convention 
for the Confederate States, but this was dissolved im- 
mediately after the war, and all were represented as 



THE NATIONAL CHUECH. 



287 



usual at the first General Conyention which met there- 
after. This coming together of Churchmen, among 
whom were many of the most influential leaders on both 
sides, did much more than is commonly reahzed to help 
forward the reconstruction of the Union and Government. 



For many years after the foundations of unity and 
Catholicity had been laid and well cemented, the upbuild- 
ing of the superstructure was discouragingly slow. This, 
in fact, continued to be the case until about thirty years 
ago. It was due to the operation of a variety of causes. 

1. There was, first of all, the inveterate puritan- 
ical hatred of the Church, because of those features in 
her system which were groundlessly denounced as the 
''rags of Popery." 

2. There was also the wide-spread conviction that 
the Episcopal polity was essentially opposed to the 
newly-founded Kepubhcan form of government, and 
that consequently its introduction and toleration 
would be a menace to the recently-acquired liberties. 
Bishop AVhite says: "I have lived in days in which 
there existed such prejudices in our land against the 
name, and still more against the office, of a Bishop, 
that it was doubtful whether any person in that char- 
acter would be tolerated in the community." Even as 
late as the year 1827, when Bishop Chase laid the mas- 
sive foundations for " Old Kenyon," the people of the 
region about Gambler had the gravest suspicions that 
he was building an English fort for the subjugation of 
the country west of the Alleghanies, and could scarce be 
restrained from taking up arms against the Bishop and 
workmen. 

It is still periodically represented, to the great preju- 
dice of the Episcopal Church, that she fits in with a 



288 



THE AMEEICAX CHUECH. 



Monarchical rather than a Republican form of gov- 
ernment. In a recent widely-circulated attack upon 
the Episcopal Church, it is charged that she cannot 
make good the claim to be the Church of the United 
States, because she "has not in history been loyal to 
Americanism," and "it is not in its government 
American." 

So far as the first of these assertions is concerned, 
what httle foundation there is for it exists in the fact 
that before the Independence, there being no Bishop in 
this country, our Clergy either came from England or 
went there for Ordination, and so their loyalty to the 
Crown was pledged in the oath required from the Eng- 
lish Clergy by the government. But though our minis- 
try was thus embarrassed, our laymen were as free 
as those of any other communion to govern them- 
selves according to their couA^ction. It is a mistake to 
suppose that before the Declaration of Independence, 
opinion as to the advisability of separating /rom the 
mother country was nowhere divided except in the 
Episcopal Church, and the colonies where she predom- 
inated. The Puritans were by no means unanimous for 
an ajDpeal to arms. In Massachusetts a majority were 
at first opposed to the war; a bill to sanction it was 
twice defeated in the Legislature. In Connecticut the 
opposition was still greater. In Xew York the parties 
were so equally divided, that when the Provincial Con- 
gress chanced to receive notice upon the same day in 
1775 that General Washington was about to cross the 
Hudson and General Tryon- had arrived in the harbor, 
they ordered the colonel commanding the militia so to 
dispose his men that he could receive whichever General 
should first arrive, and wait upon both as well as cir- 
cumstances would allow. Two-thirds of the signers of 
the Declaration of Independence were Episcopahans. 



THE NATIONAL CHITECH. 



289 



One signer from Massachusetts. Elbridge Gerrv, after- 
wards Vice-President of the United States : all but one 
of the signers from New York : one signer from New Jer- 
sey, Francis Hopkinson. a vestryman and warden; all 
the signers but one from Pennsylvania; all but one 
from Delaware; all but one from Maryland: all the 
signers from Virginia : all from North Carolina; all 
from South Carohna: and all but one from Georgia, 
were EpiscopaUans. This immortal document was 
mainly drawn up by Thomas Jefferson, who was, at 
least, a baptized member and a professed adherent of 
the Episcopal Church. He was, to the day of his death, 
a constant attendant upon her Services. 

Washington, the Commander-in-chief of the armies, 
and the one, under God, to whom the nation owes more 
for its independence than any other, was a Communicant, 
Vestryman, and Lay Reader of this Church, and died in 
it. Robert B. Livingston, who. in a. d. 1764. organized 
the opposition to the Stamp Act in New York, was an 
Episcopahan. So was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, to 
whom we owe the phrase, "millions for defense, but not 
a cent for tribute.'' He was also the author of that 
clause of the Federal Constitution which provides that 
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification 
for any office in the United States. And there was Pat- 
rick Henry, whose famous speech, ''Give me hberty or 
give me death," went so far in deciding Virginia to join 
her sister colonies in the struggle for freedom. The debt 
of gratitude which we owe this thrilling Revolutionary 
orator cannot be appreciated unless we realize how In- 
dispensable the help of Virginia was to the patriot 
cause. Had Virginia stood aloof, or taken sides with 
England, we should, in all probability, have failed. 
John Morton, who. as chairman, on July 2, 1776, cast 
the vote by which Pennsylvania was committed to the 

C. A.~19 



290 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



Revolution, was an Episcopalian. So was Caesar Rod- 
ney, who did a similar service for Delaware. Richard 
Henry Lee, of Virginia, called the Cicero of the Revo- 
lution, who first proposed the idea of a Congress for all 
the Colonies, and introduced into Congress a resolution 
for the Independence of the Colonies, was an Episcopalian. 
On his motion, and supported by his eloquence, was 
adopted the recommendation of the Committee which 
drew up and reported the Declaration of Independence ; 
and in that instrument was embodied by Congress the 
very words that Lee had used in his original resolution : 
"That these united Colonies are, and by right ought to 
be, free and independent States; that they are absolved 
from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all 
political connection between them and the State of 
Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." 
The declaration of rights adopted by the Virginia Legis- 
lature, and embodied in the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, was written by George Mason, an Episcopalian. The 
Declaration was first publicly read in the State House 
Square, Philadelphia, by John iSixon, an Episcopalian. 

Peyton Randolph, the first President of the Ameri- 
can Congress — that very Congress which inaugurated 
and set on foot the War of the Revolution — was 
an Episcopalian. So was Robert Morris, whom Con- 
gress appointed superintendent of finances, and by 
whose management of them, and the pledging of his 
own immense fortune— an act that reduced him to pov- 
erty — did so much to raise the necessary means to keep 
o^r armies in the field. Benjamin Franklin, w^hom Con- 
gress sent abroad as one of its special envoys, and who, 
by his tact and persistence, negotiated the treaty which 
secured for us the aid of France, without which our 
cause must, to all appearance, inevitably have failed, 
was nominally an Episcopalian. 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



291 



The lanterns which lighted Paul Revere's famous 
ride to alarm the country of the British movement 
upon Lexington and Concord were hung in the steeple 
of "Old Christ's Episcopal Church" by an Episcopalian. 
The Bishop of Iowa, the learned and painstaking his- 
toriographer of the American Episcopal Church, to whose 
writings I am indebted for many of the facts of this 
lecture, says truly : " Not a field of battle, from Bunker 
Hill to Yorktown, w^as there, but was moistened by 
Churchmen's willing offering of life-blood for country 
and freedom." General Sullivan, of New Hampshire; 
General Cobb, of Massachusetts; General Ward, of 
Rhode Island; Generals Morgan and Lewis, of New 
York; General Brearly, of New Jersey; Generals Ross, 
Cadwallader, and ''Mad Anthony" Wayne, of Penn- 
sylvania; Generals Sumpter, Marion, and Moultrie, of 
South Carolina; Generals Gwynoett, Wymberly Jones, 
and Walton, of Georgia, were all Episcopalians. So 
were Generals Montgomery and Alercer, who in turn so 
gallantly laid down their lives at Quebec and Prince- 
ton. Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens, the 
first of whom commanded, and the other led, the 
storming party which captured the first British re- 
doubt at Yorktown, where Cornwallis surrendered 
and where the war was practically ended, were Epis- 
copalians. Nelson, the Governor of Virginia, who 
called out the militia of the lower part of the 
State, himself personally giving the State security for 
the funds to equip them, and who, at the head of 
three thousand five hundred of them, marched to 
Yorktown, reaching the scene of action just in time 
to reinforce the arm}^ of Washington and that of 
our French allies, so that they were enabled to sur- 
round Cornwallis and prevent his escape, was an Epis- 
copalian. 



292 



THE AMEEICAN CHUECH. 



James Madison, afterwards President of the United 
States, who, besides giving the benefit of his great mind 
to the country during the continuation of the struggle, 
after its close, when the States were about to fall apart, 
was mainl J instrumental in the formation of our present 
Constitution, was an Episcopahan. All of these men, to- 
gether with Monroe, and Jay, and Marshall, and Living- 
stone, and Rutledge, and King, and the Pinkneys, and the 
Harrisons, and Edmund Randolph, and Lord Sterling, 
and ''Lighthorse Harry" Lee, andLillington, andDerr, 
and Troup, and William Samuel Johnson, and hosts of 
others, were Episcopalians. Francis Hopkinson, of New 
Jersey, one of the Episcopalian signers of the Declara- 
tion, was the father of Joseph Hopkinson, also a mem- 
ber of the Episcopal Church, who was the author of our 
National song," Hail Columbia ; " and Francis Scott Key, 
of Maryland, the writer of ^'The Star Spangled Ban- 
ner," was an Episcopalian. 

As for our Clergy, when the great crisis came, there 
were only two hundred and fifty of them in the country. 
It is true that some of them, including Dr. Seaburj^, 
who afterwards became the first Bishop of Connecticut, 
strongly sympathized with England. These for the 
most part either left the country or remained neutral. 
But a goodly proportion of our ministry must be 
reckoned among the staunchest of patriots. Of these 
in the North may be mentioned the Rev. Doctors Bass 
and Parker, both in turn, after the war. Bishops of Massa- 
chusetts. These refused to read prayers for the King 
and Parliament and instead praj^ed for the Ameri- 
can cause. Dr. Provoost, of New York, afterwards first 
Bishop of that State, was an ardent friend to America. 
The Rev. William White of Philadelphia, who became 
the first Bishop of Pennsylvania, also Doctors Madison 
and Smith, the first Bishops respectively of Virginia 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



293 



and South Carolina^ took sides with the Colonies. The 
Eev. David Griffith of Virginia. Rector of the Church 
which Washington attended, did the same. The Rev. 
Charles M. Thurston, of Gloucester County, Yirginia, 
went into the army as a soldier, rose to the rank 
of major and became known as the "fighting par- 
son of Gloucester." The Rev. Peter Muhlenburg, of 
Woodstock, who had been a soldier before he became 
a Clergyman, entered the army as Colonel of the 8th 
regiment of Virginia and afterwards rose to be a 
brigadier-general. 

A graphic account is preserved of the leaving of the 
pulpit for the field by Mr. Muhlenburg. Having procured 
a colonel's commission from General Washington, he 
proceeded on a Sunday to Church, and, after a patriotic 
sermon, took leave of his congregation in the following 
words : " There is a time for all things— a time to preach 
and a time to pray ; but there is also a time to fight, and 
that is now come." He then gave them his benediction, 
and throwing back his gown discovered to them his mil- 
itary uniform. We may well leave the poet Read to tell 
the remainder of this dramatic story in the closing verses 
of one of the most stirring poems in the English language : 

A moment there was awful pause, — 
When Berkley cried, "Cease, traitor! cease! 
God's temple is the house of peace!" 

The other shouted, "Nay, not so. 
When God is with our righteous cause ; 
His holiest places then are ours, 
His temples are our forts and towers, 

That frown upon the tyrant foe ; 
In this, the dawn of Freedom's day, 
There is a time to iight and pray!" 

And now before the open door — 

The warrior Priest had ordered so— 
The enlisting trumpet's sudden roar 



294 



THE AMERICA^ CHUECH. 



Eang through the chapel, o'er and o'er, 

Its long reverberating blow, 
So loud and clear, it seemed the ear 
Of dusty death must wake and hear. 
And there the startling drum and fife 
Fired the living with fiercer life; 
While overhead, with wild increase. 
Forgetting its ancient toll of peace. 

The great bell swung as ne'er before: 
It seemed as it would never cease; 
And every word its ardor flung 
From off its jubilant iron tongue 

Was, "War! War! War!" 

"Who dares" — this was the patriot's cry, 
As striding from the desk he came, — 

"Come out with me, in Freedom's name, 
For her to live, for her to die?" 
A hundred hands flung up reply, 
A hundred voices answered "I!" 

Mr. Muhlenburg, having led three hundred brave vol- 
unteers to the front, remained with the army till the 
dose of the war, and then engaged in civil pursuits until 
his death in 1807. There was also the patriot, the Rev. 
Charles Pettigrew, of North Carolina. In South Caro- 
lina, where at the breaking out of the war, there were 
only twenty" Clergymen of the Church, it is said that fif- 
teen of them, or three-fourths of the entire number, took 
sides with America. Six of the Signers of the Declara- 
tion of Independence were sons or grandsons of Episco- 
pal Clergymen. 

The Eev. Thomas Duche, of Philadelphia, arrayed 
in full canonicals, offered the first pra^-er in Congress. 
The following interesting reminiscence of this event 
is preserved to us in a letter to his wife from the ven- 
erable John Adams. "When the Congress met, Mr. 
Gushing made a motion that it should be opened with 
prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay, of New York, and 



THE NATIONAL CHUECH. 



295 



Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, because we were so 
divided in religious sentiments, some Episcopalians, 
some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, 
and some Congregationalists, tbat we could not jom m 
the same act of worship. Mr. Samuel Adams arose and 
said, that he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer 
from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the 
same time a friend to his country. He was a stranger 
in Philadelphia, but had heard that Mr. Duche deserved 
that character, and therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, 
an Episcopal Clergyman, might be desired to read 
prayers to Congress to-morrow^ morning. The motion 
was*^ seconded and passed in the affirmative. Mr. Ran- 
dolph, our President, waited on Mr. Duche and received 
for answer that, if his health would permit, he certainly 
would. Accordingly next morning he appeared with his 
clerk, and in his pontificals, and read several prayers in 
the established form, and then read a psalm for the 
seventh day of September, which was the 35th Psalm. 
You must remember this was the next morning after we 
had heard of the terrible cannonade at Boston. It 
seemed as if Heaven had ordered that psalm to be read 
on that morning. After this Mr. Duche, unexpectedly 
to everybody, struck out into extempore prayer, which 
filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess 
I never heard a better prayer or one so well pronounced. 
Episcopahan as he is. Dr. Cooper himself never prayed 
with such fervor, such ardor, such correctness and 
pathos, and in language so elegant and sublime for 
America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts 
Bay, especially the town of Boston. It had excellent 
effect upon everybody here. I must beg of you to 
read the psalm. ["Plead Thou my cause God, with 
them that strive with me, and fight Thou against 
them that fight against me."] It was enough to 



296 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gush into the 
eyes of the old, grave, pacific Quakers of Philadelphia." 

Dr. William White, mentioned above, was elected as 
the first regular Chaplain of Congress. I do not remem- 
ber ever reading of any Puritan ministers who did more 
for the catise of liberty than these Clergymen of the 
Church. None of them, so far as my knowledge extends, 
took up arms. They may, in some cases, have done more 
patriotic preaching than our Clergy, but they certainly 
did not do as much fio^hting of which record is made. 

During the late Civil AVar, the Northern members of 
the Episcopal Church certainly manifested as much 
patriotism as those of any other body of Christians. 
This will hardly be denied in the face of the notable fact 
that the Bishop of Ohio was sent by the Northern gov- 
ernment to England to dissuade the nobility from 
acknowledging and favoring the Confederacy, and who, 
by accomplishing a mission so important to the Union, 
earned the lasting gratitude of his fellow countrymen. 
Surely the reader will perceive the injustice of charging 
the Episcopal Church with a lack of patriotism, when 
he is told that McTlvaine, Seward, Chase, Stanton, 
Wells, Blair, Dennison, Columbus Delano, Henry Win- 
ter Davis, Edmunds, David Davis, Isaac F. Kedfield, 
Jay Cooke, Fremont, Mead, Schofield, Curtis, Hancock, 
Porter, Craven, and other distinguished Union patriots, 
a complete fist of whom would fill several pages, were 
Episcopalians. The authoress of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," 
a book which, perhaps, next to the daily press, did 
more than anything else to fire patriotism and the 
spirit of war in the rank and file of the North, and, by 
so doing, contributed immeasurably towards preventing 
the downfall of the Union, is an Episcopalian. How 
can a Church which enrolls the above names among her 
members, names which represent so many pillars of lib- 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



297 



erty and union, be justly stigmatized with a lack of 
patriotism? A regard to that Scriptural precept which 
requires honor to be given to whom it is due, would 
surely place the Episcopal Church far up, if not at 
the very head of American patriot-producing institu- 
tions. 

The only conceivable ground for the misconception 
regarding the patriotism of Episcopalians, is found in 
the fact that the Episcopal Church steadfastly refuses 
to meddle in politics. Her policy is to leave the govern- 
ment in the hands of those whom God, by the voice of 
the people, has charged with its awful responsibilities, 
and to hold up their hands by the loyalty and the 
prayers of her members. The Church that teaches her 
adherents, without regard to political and other prefer- 
ences, to pray at every Service for the President, and all 
other civil authorities, and appoints a prayer to be 
said every Sunday during the session of Congress, is 
essentially a patriotic Church, and what wonder is it 
that so many of her sons have been among the most 
noble and distinguished of our patriots. 

In reply to the charge that "the Episcopal Church 
is not in its government American," one of our Clergy- 
men pointed out that our critic was mistaken as to the 
essential characteristic of the United States govern- 
ment, which is not the individualism tha t finds free play 
in the Congregational Denomination, but the represen- 
tative policy which prevails in the Episcopal Church. 
"The critic's idea of American government is a town 
meeting, a little affair in which each individual expresses 
his opinion and choice directly. Our idea of American 
government is that of a nation in which the people 
* voice their choice through representative assemblies or 



298 



THE a:sieeicax chuech. 



persons. Will it be contended that the American gov- 
ernment is not a representative government?" 

The Episcopal Church is as effectualh^ safe-gnarded 
against Monarchicalism as the United States, if any 
thing more so. Though our Bishops, because of their 
exalted position as successors of the Apostles and their 
personal worth, are greatly honored, yet they do not, as 
the heads of their respective Dioceses, exercise as much 
authority as the Governors of our States : nor does our 
Primate enjoy the vetoing power with which the Presi- 
dent of the United States is invested. The Laity are 
more fully represented in our Diocesan Synods than the 
Clergy, and the Lower House of our Triennial General 
Convention is composed of Clergymen and Laymen in 
equal numbers. These generally vote together, but a 
representative of either order may at any time call for 
a division, and so it becomes possible that a measure 
which has passed the House of Bishops, and also re- 
ceived the majority of clerical votes in the House of 
Deputies, may yet fail of becoming a law, because 
among the Lay delegates there is one more against 
than for it. This is a remarkable departure fi-om the 
Mother Church, in whose Convocations the Laity have 
no voice, and can be accounted for only by the fact that 
in all things of human ordering, the Church's govern- 
ment was modeled by true sons of America. 

The principles which prevail in the government of 
the Church at large are also carried out in our Parishes. 
Though the Rector is the official head of the parochial 
organization, his word is not law except when it relates 
to the Services and Disciphne ; and even in these mat- 
ters he is obhged to have reference to the regulations 
of the General Convention and Diocesan Synods, in 
which, as we have seen, the Laity as well as the Clergy 
have a voice. Besides the Layman, who feels that he 



THE NATIONAL CHUECH. 



299 



has a just grievance against his Kector, is alwa^^s at hb- 
ertv to appeal to the Bishop. The Yestry, elected 
by the supporters of the Parish, have charge of the 
property and finances. In the case of a vacancy in 
the Rectorship they fill it with the approval of the 
Bishop. 

"While," as Bishop Perry observes, ''our Orders are 
Apostolic and unchangeable, as coming from above— 
made, as of old the Tabernacle of Israel was, after the 
pattern given in the Mount — our organization is of 
human origin and adaptation, and is just such as might 
be expected from Churchmen who were leaders and fram- 
ers of government both in Church and State a century 
ago. Thus is it that we are at once, in structural being 
and government, thoroughly republican, distinctively 
American— the Church of the people, the Church for the 
people. And the work of our Fathers, both in Church 
and State, has now the approval and indorsement of 
more than a hundred successful years." 

I cannot better conclude this necessarily somewhat 
lengthy digression for the purpose of answering the 
charge of un-Americanism than by calling attention to 
what Henry Clay had to say upon the subject. This 
great statesman and orator did not identify himself 
with any form of organized Christianity until late in 
life. He is reported to have said about the time of 
his Baptism, that among the considerations which 
induced him to become a member of the Episcopal 
Church rather than of any other, was the fact that years 
of observation and study had led him to the conclusion 
that the stability of our government depends upon the 
perpetuation of two institutions. "One of these, and 
the most important of the two," said Mr. Clay, "is the 
Episcopal Church, and the other is the Supreme Court 
of the United States. " 



300 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



3. Again, the Kevoliitionary War was especially dis- 
astrous to the Church. As we have seen, many of its al- 
ready very inadequate Clerical force had abandoned the 
country. In the four colonies of Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey and Pennsylvania there were at the close of 
the war no less than seventy vacant Churches. Those 
Clergymen who remained, in the majority of cases came 
out, after eight long years of privation and anxiety, 
broken in health and greatly impoverished, it not abso- 
lutely destitute. The C^hurches and rectories very 
generally had been destroyed or desecrated, and al- 
lowed to fall into ruins. When the war began, Vir- 
ginia had one hundred and sixty -four Churches and 
ninety-one Clergymen. At the end, ninety-five Churches 
had been destroyed, and only twenty-eight of the 
Clergy remained. Moreover, the glebe lands and endow- 
ments were, after a time, confiscated. The misfortunes 
which befell Virginia were common throughout the 
South. 

4. About this time the Church was greatly weakened 
by the creeping in of heresies. King's Chapel, the 
oldest foundation of the Episcopal Church in Boston, 
was lost to the Unitarians. This, however, was due as 
much to the scattering of Churchmen by the Revolu- 
tionary storm as to the ravages of heresy. 

5. Again, our immigration since the Revolution has 
been almost wholly from the non-Episcopal and Roman 
Catholic elements of England, Ireland and Scotland. 
And from all the hosts that have come to us from con- 
tinental Europe, we have received no accessions. The 
principal part of the Roman constituency is of foreign 
birth. The papers frequently convey the information 
that one hundred thousand souls have been added to 
their Communion within a given year. This is astonish- 
ing to all that are not aware that about this number 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



301 



of Komanists have been immigrating to the United 
States from year to year. But for this, the growth 
would have been the other way. All the chief bodies of 
Protestants, except the Episcopal Church, have had 
thousands and tens of thousands of accessions by im- 
migration. Our adherents are almost wholly Amer- 
ican born. The great majority ofEnghsh immigrants 
are Dissenters, and so do not contribute to our up- 
building, though, fortunately, their removal weakens 
the enemies of the Mother Church, who are bent upon 
disestabhshment and confiscation. The fact that this 
Church has profited so little by immigration is, in 
itself, almost sufficient to explain our comparatively 
slow growth. 

6. Moreover, we became an independent Church, and 
started out on our career as such, just about the time 
of the great Methodist schism, and the beginning of the 
revival system, which for fifty years swept very nearly 
eA^erything before it. In the religious excitement, which 
in one resistless wave after another rolled over the 
country, the Church was almost submerged and lost 
sight of, and hundreds of thousands who, under nor- 
mal conditions, would have remained in this Church, or 
would have come into it, were floated into one or an- 
other of the Denominations. 

7. Even the Civil War brought more disaster to the 
Episcopal Church than to any other Christian body in 
the land. "The reason,'' observes a Southern Clergy- 
man, "is plain. The Churchmen of ante-bellum days 
were the social as well as the political ruling class of the 
South. The struggle shattered their fortunes, and left 
many a famih^ of former affluence in comparative pen- 
ury. Consequently, many rural, and not a few village. 
Churches, are to-day in ruins, or bearing every mark of 
poverty and neglect, occasionally sheltering a dispirited 



302 



THE A:\rEEICAX CHURCH. 



congregation, vainly struggling to repair the waste 
places of the local Zion." 

8. But perhaps the most potent of many causes 
which operated against the Church's growth, was the 
timid and apologetic poHcy pursued for the most part 
by her representatives, until about fifty years ago. Then 
the principles of Bishops Seabury and Hobart began 
to prevail, and the Church was represented by an ever- 
widening circle in her true character as a veritable 
branch of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic 
Church of Christ." The adoption of this policy by a 
considerable number of our Clergy, marks a new and 
brighter era in the history of the American Episcopal 
Church. This is also true in respect to the Enghsh 
Church in which the movement was started. The 
contrast between the phenomenal growth of both 
Churches in every element of strength since the change, 
and their languishing condition before it, should be 
a perpetual admonition to Churchmen never again 
to commit the fatal mistake of allowing the impres- 
sion to go abroad that the Episcopal Church is 
simply one of the post-Eeformation sects, whose chief 
distinguishing features are the Prayer Book and sur- 
plice. 



But for a long time the revival of the doctrines and 
ceremonies of the Primitive Church was stoutly and 
persistently resisted by a formidable party in the Church 
which styled itself "Evangelical."* Its representatives 
w^ere ever loudly lamenting and denouncing what they 
w^ere pleased to characterize as the Merlitpval and 
Romanizing tendency of those who called themselves 
Anglo-Catholics. A few of the more radical among 
them finally grew so desperate that they could no 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



303 



longer defer the secession whicli for years had seemed 
inevitable. Accordingly, in December, 1873, under the 
leadership of the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, the so- 
called Reformed Episcopal Church was organized. It 
was expected on all hands that there would be a gen- 
eral exodus of the "Evangelicals." This expectation 
was, however, never reahzed. Only a handful of the 
Clergy, and in proportion, fewer of the Laity went out, 
and many of both after a short sojourn returned. It is 
known that the disappointment and chagrin of Bishop 
Cummins were very great, and it is generally believed 
that they caused his premature death to which his fol- 
lowers attribute in great measure the almost complete 
failure of their ill-advised and unjustifiable schism. 
Though it was begun with forty ministers, there are 
now, after twenty years, only one hundred and twenty, 
not a few of whom are dissatisfied. One of the most 
distinguished of Bishop Cummins' original adherents 
deplores the present condition of things, and asks an 
explanation of its cause. He says that "a portion of 
our Church has been impressed from the beginning of 
our present system with its inherent defects." 

As long as the Church was generally believed to be 
only one among the sects, it was naturally the most 
despised and least progressive of them all. The real 
sects flourished while the Church languished; had she 
continued in this false attitude, she would doubtless be 
even now an inconsiderable force among the many De- 
nominations in this country. Our ancestors of a hun- 
dred years ago beheld with astonishment the progress 
of modern Sectarianism, which was then in all its mar- 
velous vigor, and they, perhaps naturally enough, 
jumped to the conclusion that the weakness and waning 
state of the Church were chiefly due to what her ene- 
mies ignorantly represented as Popish ceremonies and 



304 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



doctrines. They did not perceive, and under the cir- 
cumstances could hardly be expected to have perceived, 
that the conditions of Sectarian and Church growth 
are essentially different. The sect in all ages, like the 
cornstalk, shoots up quickly and bears its fruit in a 
summer; but the Church, resembhng the oak in her 
growth, advances slowly and remains through frost 
and sunshine, and from generation to generation. 

Our growth, since w^e have recognized and proclaimed 
the true. Divine and Catholic character of the American 
Episcopal Church, has been scarcely less remarkable 
than that of the most prosperous forms of Sectarianism 
in their palmiest days. In fact, we are outstripping 
them in various parts of the country where it once 
seemed as if we could never get a foot-hold. It has been 
acknow^ledged that, if the Church continues her present 
rate of growth for another decade, she will be the 
strongest body of non-Roman Christians in New Eng- 
land itself. And it has been admitted by distinguished 
Denominational ministers that the Church throughout 
the country is, everything considered, making more 
rapid and substantial progress than any of the Denom- 
inations. 

In every State and Territory, the percentage of in- 
crease for the period covered by the last census, was all 
that could have been expected, and in the majority of 
them was astonishing even to those among us who are 
most sanguine and confident touching the future of the 
Church. In forty -two of our forty-nine States and Terri- 
tories, our increase has been from thirty to more than 
six hundred per cent. The population of the United 
States during the same period increased less than 
twenty -five per cent. And not only has the general 



THE XATIOXAL CHURCH. 



305 



growth of the Church far exceeded proportionately that 
of the population at large, but it is also greater than 
that of any other religious body in particular. 

Moreover, there is a very general looking towards us 
with favor. It is said by those who are in a position to 
know, that in our large cities, where the Church is well 
represented, out of ten persons who change from one 
Denomination to another, nine of them come into the 
Episcopal Church. Among those recently confirmed in 
thirty of the New York City parishes,' there were 
over four hundred who had been born and educated in 
the several Denominations. In one of the classes alone 
there were one Jew, one Baptist, two French Protes- 
tants, three Unitarians, three Congregationalists, seven 
Methodists, nineteen Romanists, twenty-eight Presby- 
terians and fifty-two Lutherans. This drift is rapidly 
making us the dominant body of Christians in all large 
centers of population. 

One of the most remarkable and encouraging 
features of our growth is the number of able ministers 
fi'om the various Denominations who are coming to us. 
Our accessions from their ranks now amount to about 
forty annually, and the rate is increasing from year to 
year. It is estimated that within the last thirty years 
fully fifteen hundred Denominational preachers have been 
received into our ministry. Many of these Avere the 
foremost men of their respective Denominations. A 
number of them have become Bishops among us and 
Rectors of our largest parishes. 

This remarkable drift towards the Episcopal Church 
is, of course, observed b3^ the Denominational leaders 
who tr}^ to account for it. A Presbyterian writer thinks 
that it is due to the attractiveness of the Prayer Book 
Worship." A Lutheran believes that "the possession 
of the Historic Episcopate explains it." But a New 

C. A.— 20 



306 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



York Baptist minister " hits tlie nail on the head" when, 
after calling attention to the fact that his Denomina- 
tion has increased only thirty-six per cent, in the Em- 
pire State, while the Episcopal Church has gained one 
hundred and forty-one per cent, in the same period, 
hesays : " The true explanation is to be found in thecon- 
fidence, assurance, and courage of the Episcopal lead- 
ers. They believe that theirs is 'the Church,' and are 
not slow to assert their belief. That very assurance, 
and the exclusiveness which comes from it, is the tower 
of their strength. They are not ashamed of their belief; 
they have the courage of their convictions, and a large 
part of the world takes them at their OAvn estimate. 
Here is the secret of their power." In commenting upon 
these words, the editor of one of our religious papers 
rightly says: " This is a clear-headed, and, we believe, 
substantially a true judgment. It goes to prove two 
things : first, that many thinking people are in search 
of ' the Church ; ' second, that those are hardly true sons 
of the Church who seek to take away this bulwark by 
decrying or minimizing her Catholic claims, or by enter- 
ing into entangling alliances, which would remove the 
exclusiveness which legitimately results from such 
claims." 

It is popularly supposed that since the Oxford re- 
vival, almost as many go from the Episcopal Church to 
the Eoman Communion as come to her from the sev- 
eral Protestant Denominations. And for some time 
after its beginning there was, it must be confessed, 
much ground for fear that this would be the case. As 
Dr. McConnell remarks: "In England, as a direct con- 
sequence of the revived Ecclesiasticism, such great 
names as Newman, Manning, Oakley, Faber, Wilber- 
force, Palmer, and Ward passed from the Church's rolls 
to the lists of Rome. In America, Bishop Ives, of North 



THE NATIONAL CHURCH. 



307 



Carolina, and a group of men of lesser station, but 
greater character, followed in the same path. But the 
general apostasy for which many looked did not occur. 
The facts seemed to point to a different outcome, as the 
event has showm. The sum total of the losses to the 
Eoman Catholic Church in Great Britain up to a.d. 
1888, including Clergy and Laity, men and women, fall 
below two thousand. That is to say, an average of 
thirty -five persons per year have left the Church of Eng- 
land for Kome during the last sixty years. One large 
parish Church Avould hold them all, Uving or dead." 

Nor is it speaking beyond^ bounds to say that for 
every one who went to Rome five have come from her 
to us. Bishop Perry, of Iowa, says that during his 
Episcopate of eighteen years, there have been received 
into the Church in Iowa from the Roman obedience over 
seven hundred adultsw^ho have exchanged, intelligently, 
and with a full knowledge of what they were doing, a 
false Cathohcity for a true. ''In the same time," the 
Bishop adds, "we have lost to Rome, so far as I can 
learn, less than half a dozen individuals." The Bishop 
of Maryland reports that in his average Confirmation 
classes there are about thirty converts from Romanism 
and the same number from the Methodists each month. 
"The tide of return," says he, "appears a steady 
one." 

But increase in numbers does not much more than 
half tell the story. The growth of the Church must 
also be measured by her influence upon the Denomina- 
tions about her. During her prostrate condition 
Methodism moulded all Protestantism to her own form. 
But this is no longer the ca se. Methodism is now herself 
putting on the external garments of the Church. The 
general observance of Christmas and Easter by special 
services and decorations; the responsive readings and 



308 



THE AMERICAX CHURCH. 



authems and the growing elaboration of ritnal; the 
catechising of children, and the reception of them into 
full membership at the tender age of twelve years and 
even younger ; the Gothic architecture, pipe organ and 
stained glass — all these things and much more, partic- 
ularly the dechne of the revival system, bear witness to 
the fact that the influence of the Church is becoming 
more and more dominant. 

Even in old Presbyterian, Puritanical Scotland,, we 
find a remarkable illustration of the growing ascend- 
ency of Church ideas. A number of the most prominent 
ministers in the established Kirk, including such famous 
men as Milligan, Macleod, Lang, Boyd and Cooper 
have organized ''The Church Society," the special ob- 
jects of which are ••(!) The consistent affirmation 
on the same basis of the supernatural life and 
Heavenly cahing of the Church. (2) The fostering of 
a due sense of the historic continuity of the Church 
from the first. (3) The maintaining of the necessity 
of a valid Ordination to the Holy Ministry, and the 
celebration in a befitting manner of the Rite of Ordi- 
nation. (4) The assertion of the efficacy of the Sacra- 
ments. (5) The promotion of the rehgious education 
and pastoral care of the young on the basis of Holy 
Baptism. (6) The restoration of the Holy Communion 
to its right place in relation to the worship of the 
Church, and to the Spiritual life of the Baptized. (7) 
The revival of daily Service where practicable. (8) The 
observance, in its main features, of the Christian year. 
(9) The deepening of a penitential sense of the sin and 
peril of schism.'-' '^ Xow it seems to me,'' says an irate 
Scotchman fi^om whom we quote the above, '"that 
though the promoters of this movement do not say so, 
the whole thing smacks of High Churcliism. What do 
you say to expressions like ' Cathohc Doctrine,' 'His- 



THE >^ATIOXAL CHUECH. 



309 



toric continuity of the Church,' ' Valid Ordination of the 
Holy Ministry,' ' befitting celebration of the Kite of Or- 
dination,' 'efficacy of the Sacraments,' 'basis of Holy 
Baptism,' 'Holy Communion in relation to the Spirit- 
ual life of the' Baptized,' 'revival of daily Service,' 
' observance of the Christian year ' and ' sin and peril 
of schism? ' " 

Romanists sometimes claim that the striking change 
which has come over Denominationahsm is due to the 
influence of their Church. But there is really nothing in 
this. Owing in part to the origin and character of the 
Roman constituency, and also in part to the detestation 
in which the whole Ultramohtane system is still held 
by Denominationahsts, these representatives of the ex- 
tremes have very little social and less rehgious inter- 
course. But Episcopahans and Denominationalistshave 
always mingled freely in all things except religion. And 
as our members have been a great, if not the dominant, 
influence in the social, political and commercial world, 
it is eddent that they have had much to do directly and 
indirectly in bringing about the change under considera- 
tion. Take, for example, the striking change in respect 
to the observance of Christmas and Easter, and even of 
the Lenten season. There can be no question that it is 
due to Episcopal rather than Roman influence. This 
is especially evident in the case of Lent. Though its 
rehgious observance is by no means general, yet it 
receives almost universal recognition in the abandon- 
ment of social gaieties . This is accounted for by the.fact 
that during this holy season a large and important 
section of society withdraws from the social world, and 
it is, as everybody knows, composed not of Romanists, 
but of Episcopahans. 

Truly we may thank God and take courage. The 
day of small things and of adversity is being succeeded 



310 



THE AMERICAN CHURCH. 



1)3^ one of rapid growth and great prosperity. The 
touching prayer contained in the old poetical version of 
the nineteenth Psalm, sung at the Consecration of 
Bishop Seabiiry, is being graciously answered : 

"To satisfy and cheer our souls, 
Thy early mercies send ; 
That we may all our days to come 
In joy and comfort spend. 

"Let happy times with large amends 
Dry up our former tears, 
Or equal at the least, the term 
Of our afflicted years. 

"To all thy servants, Lord, let this 
Thy wondrous work be known, 
And to our offspring yet unborn, 
Thy glorious power be shown, 

"Let Thy bright rays upon us shine. 

Give Thou our work success, 
The glorious work we have in hand, 
Do Thou vouchsafe to bless." 



The Church for Americans. 



LECTURE VI. 

OBdECTIONS TO TME EPISCOPAL ChURCM. 

I. Prayer Book Worship. 

II. Formalism. 

III. Vestments. 

IV. Lack of Vital Religion. 

V. Composed of the Upper Classes. 
VI. Bigoted and Exclusive. 
VII. Like the Roman Catholic, 



(31J) 



AUTHORITIES. 



Bull, Bp., A Vindication of the Church of England. 
Clarke, Walk About Zion. 

Crakantiiorp's Defensio Ecclesijs Anglicans. 
CuRTEis, Dissent in Its Relation to the Church of England. 
Garnier, Canon, Church or Dissent. 

Hopkins, Bp., The Primitive Church Compared with the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church of the Present Day, 
Kip, Bp., Double Witness of the Church. 

Snyder, The Chief Things, or Church Doctrine for the People. 
Staley, The Catholic Religion. 

PAMPHLETS, 

Shanklin, Some Objections Against the Episcopal Church. 

4f 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Why Can't Our Ministers Preach in Your Pulpits. 



(312^ 



Objections to the Episcopal 
Church. 



IN' almost every community in which the Episcopal 
Church is represented, many persons are kept from 
an examination of her pecuKar claims to the alle- 
giance of Americans by certain groundless objections, 
some of which it is the purpose of this lecture to state 
and answer. No attempt will here be made to exhaust 
the subject, because the most weighty of the objections 
have been considered in other connections, and because 
many of those which remain are too trifling for serious 
notice. 

It is believed that all the popular objections against 
the Church may be answered not only to the entire sat- 
isfaction of candid persons, but that to such, some of 
them can be made to appear as reasons why America,ns 
should identify themselves with the Episcopal Church 
rather than with any other. 



I. 

PRAYER BOOK WORSHIP. 

THOSE who object to the Episcopal Church because 
she uses a Prayer Book in her pubhc Services are 
constantly growing fewer. Indeed, there has 
been for some time a marked drift towards hturgical 
forms of worship in all of the leading Denominations. 
Many of their ablest representatives have been advocat- 
ing, in their religious journals, and on the floor of their 

(313) 



314 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



Conferences and Synods the adoption of preeomposed 
Services, and nearly all of the city congregations have 
anticipated official sanction by introducing certain fea- 
tures of our Kitual, such as .the chanting of Scripture, 
the responsive reading of the Psahns, the repetition of 
the Lord's Prayer, and even the Apostles' Creed by min- 
ister and people. Nevertheless, there are still s Jme to 
be found in almost every community who feel that there 
can be no "praying from the heart," no genuine, accept- 
able "approach to the throne of grace," except by an 
extempore worship. Of such let me beg due considera- 
tion of the following facts : 

First Fact. Our Lord commanded the useof precom- 
posedformsof prayer. "When ye praysay, Our Father." 
He surely would not have given this direction if precom- 
posed prayers tend to promote empty, formal worship 
more than extempore prayers. 

Second Fact. In all ages of the Church, in both 
the Old and the New Dispensation, the vast majority 
of the Saints worshipped God by the use of preeom- 
posed Services and prayers. Hebrew^ scholars tell us 
that the Jews had not only fixed forms, but also a fixed 
order in their public worship, both in the Temple and in 
their synagogues. And when the Apostles founded the 
Church, we are told, at the very outset, that it was one 
of the four marks of the Christian Unity that all joined, 
not only in prayers, but in ''the prayers," that is, cer- 
tain well-known, appointed prayers. After the time of 
the Apostles until the Reformation, worship by preeom- 
posed forms was the universal and unvarying custom. 
Justin Martyr, in the second century, speaks expressly 
of "Common Prayers." A hundred years later Origen 
and Cyprian speak respectively of the "appointed 
prayers," and the "customary prayers." These "com- 
mon," "appointed," "customary" prayers, of course. 



PRAYER BOOK WORSHIP. 



315 



could not have been extempore prayers. And that they 
were not such, is put beyond all dispute by the exist- 
ence of Liturgies, or as we should call them, Prayer 
Books, which have been used in various parts of Chris- 
tendom from the earliest times. Such are the Service 
Book of St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, used 
in all the eastern Churches ; that of St. Peter, used in 
Home; that of St. Mark, used in Africa; that of St. 
Chrysostom, used in Constantinople; and that of St/ 
John, used in Gaul, Spain and Britain. 

Third Fact. Not only was public worship, from the 
Apostles' time to the Reformation, universally conducted 
according to precomposed forms, but even at this day, 
out of three hundred and fifty millions of nominal Chris- 
tians, at least three hundred millions use the ancient 
and divinely sanctioned method of worshiping God by 
means of written forms of prayer and services. 

Fourth Fact. Public prayer, according to the 
teaching of Christ, is agreement in asking. But this 
cannot take place unless those engaged in worship 
know beforehand what they are to ask. This essential 
knowledge can exist only when the people, as well as the 
minister, are aware of what is coming. Hence, a lit- 
urgy is indispensable to true congregational devo- 
tion. 

Fifth Fact. Strictly speaking, there can be no such 
thing as public worship without the use of precomposed 
forms. Mr. Spurgeon is credited with the silly remark 
that he would tolerate but one form of prayer, namely, 
^' From all ready made prayers, ' Good Lord deliver us.' " 
But he was forthwith answered by an English Dissenter, 
who pointed out that in his Sunday School Hymn 
Book the great Baptist preacher of London had uncon- 
sciously sanctioned and adopted a large number of 
"ready-made prayers." All Denominationalists, so far 



316 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



as I know, except the Quakers, use hymns which are, in 
. reahty, forms of worship. 

" Critic freely may rehearse 
Forms of prayer and praise in verse; 
Why should Critic then suppose 
Mine are sinful when in prose? 
Must my prayer be thought a crime 
Merely for the want of rhyme? " 

Again, the extempore prayer which the ministers of 
non-liturgical bodies of Christians offer is, so far as the 
congregation is concerned, a precomposed prayer, just 
as really as are the prayers to which a congregation of 
Episcopalians respond, Amen. I repeat, public worship 
cannot be conducted except by the use of precomposed 
prayers and services. So far as the congregations are 
concerned, the only difference between, for example, 
Methodists and Episcopalians is that the members of 
a Methodist congregation prefer a form of prayer set 
forth by their minister, while the members of a congre- 
gation of Episcopalians prefer one which has been 
selected from the richest treasuries of devotion, and 
which has been approved by the whole Church in Coun- 
cil assembled. 

Sixth Fact. The use of the Prayer Book in pubhc 
worship tends to prevent irreverence. There can be no 
question that the ministers of non-liturgical Churches 
are constantly in great danger of approaching the 
Eternal Being in too easy, unceremonious and irreverent 
a manner. No doubt all of us have witnessed shocking 
examples of liberty and familiarity in approaches and 
addresses to the throne of .grace. Perhaps we have 
seen a minister get up before a public gathering with a 
cane in one hand and his hat in the other, and folding 
his arms address the King of Kings and Lord of Lords 



PRATEE BOOK AVOESHIP. 



317 



as if "he were complimenting a bo v in the street for his 
good behavior. What an abomination in the estima- 
tion of those who have in mind the majesty of God 
whose throne is in the heaven of heavens, is the prayer 
of which Mr. Gough used to teh: ''We pray Thee 
God, that the height of the rostrum may not interfere 
with the comfort of the lecturer, but* that he may be 
able to give us as good a lecture as Thou hast seen in 
the papers he has given in other towns in the country."' 

As a distinguished Denominational minister con- 
fesses: "In nearh' every newspaper you may read some 
funny story based upon the ignorance or eccentricity or 
blasphemous familiarity of some extemporizing prayer 
maker. All of you have been at times shocked or bored 
by public devotional performances. >s'othing of this 
sort ever occurs in the Episcopal Church. All things 
are done and spoken decently and in order."' 

In view of these facts there can be no reasonable ob- 
jection urged against the Episcopal Church on account 
of her use of the Prayer Book, unless it can be shown that 
it is wanting in spirituality or erroneous in doctrine. 
It can hardly be defective in either of these respects. 
From beginning to end the Prayer Book consists of but 
little more than selections from the Holy Scriptures. It 
contains the whole Book of Psalms and a large portion 
of the Gospels and Epistles. These in themselves occupy 
four hundred and twenty-seven pages of the five hun- 
dred and fifty-seven paged edition which I happen to 
have before me, leaving only one hundred and thirty 
pages for the various Services, in all about twenty-five 
in number. Some of these, notably the Morning and 
Evening Prayer and the Holy Communion, which are 
most frequently used, are each about two-thirds part 
a compilation from the Bible, and even the remaining 
third is composed of prayers, exhortations and confes- 



318 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



sions in almost the very words of Scripture. And the 
Prayer Book as a whole is an inheritance from the 
earliest and purest ages of the Church. It has come' 
down to us from the Apostles, Saints and Martyrs. 
Surely a form of worship compiled from the Word of 
God by such as these cannot be lacking in either spiritu- 
ality or soundness of doctrine. ''Blame us not, then, 
if we value our Liturgy ; it embodies the anthems of 
Saints; it thrills the heart with the dying songs of the 
faithful; it is hallowed with the blood of the Martyrs; 
it glows with sacred fire." 



II. 

FORMALISM. 

UXDER this head we shall consider the objections 
urged against the postures used in our wor- 
ship. 

Many people find in the formalities of her worship 
an insuperable objection to the Episcopal Church. 
"What is the use," they ask, ''of changing postures so 
frequently? You kneel and stand, say, a dozen times in 
the course of Morning or Evening Prayer. Why not 
follow the example of other Protestants and remain 
quietly seated during the most, if not the whole, of the 
Service? " The answer is found in the fact that while the 
Services of the various non-liturgical bodies of Chris- 
tians, if we except the hymns, provide only for a mental 
worship, those of this Church make the fullest provision 
for the adoration of Almighty God not only with the 
mind, but also with the voice and body. It is a curious 
thing that those who have the most to say about the 
Priesthood's coming between a man and his God, are 



319 



the very ones that intrust their worship most exehi- 
sivelv to ministers. Episcopalians leave less of this all- 
important duty to the Priest than any other body of 
Christians with which I am acquainted. Our Laity re- 
serve to themselves the right of taking about half of the 
Service. In rendering their part it is necessary that 
they should assume different postures in order to suit 
the action to the words. All must perceive, the moment 
that they begin to reflect, that it would be highly im- 
proper for us to confess our sins and pray for pardon 
while sitting. The instinct of propriety and reverence 
teaches us that we should not sit ^yhen we come before 
'' the King of kings and Lord of lords in his Holy 
Temple.*' ^Ye must at least kneel in prayer and stand in 
praise. Except for the precept which inculcates mercy 
rather than sacrifice, the Church would doubtless forbid 
the use of pews or chairs altogether, unless during the 
sermon, but out of consideration for physical infirmities 
and because weariness would tend to distract the mind, 
we are allowed to sit during the reading of the Lessons 
from God's Word, except in the case of the Gospel for 
the day which is heard standing, because it is regarded 
as a special message from the Lord Himself. 

But "the getting up and down'" to which our De- 
nominational brethren object, is justifiable upon the 
gTOund of helpfulness in worship as well as reverence. 
There is an intim.ate connection between mental and 
bodily worship ; indeed it is questionable whether the 
former can long exist without the latter. At all events 
there are many among the more thoughtful and candid 
of the non-liturgical Denominations, who feel that wor- 
ship is rapidly becoming "a lost art" among them. 
That thereis only too much foundation for this opinion, 
is evident from the prevailing motive for assembling 
themselves together. In nine cases out of ten it is 



320 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



avowedly for the purpose of hearing the sermon and 
music, that is, of being edified and entertained, not in 
order to worship. 

Again, there can be no question that the Scriptures 
lend their support to the Episcopalian rather than to the 
Denominational manner of worshipping God. We read 
of standing, bowing, kneehng and prostration in wor- 
ship. Not only were these the postures assumed by our 
Lord and the Saints of the Bible, but also by the primi- 
tive Christians and, in fact, by the Church of all ages 
down to the Reformation. Before that time the custom 
which now prevails among Denominationalists of sit- 
ting during the progress of Divine Service, was utterly 
unknown. As the learned author of ''The Antiquities 
of the Christian Church" points out, "Tertullian indeed 
says, there were some superstitious persons in his time, 
admirers of the book called 'Hermes Pastor,' who made 
it a matter of conscience to sit down some time when 
prayer was ended, because they found the example of 
the pastor in that book to that purpose. For as he sat 
down upon a bed after prayer, so they thought them- 
selves obhged to do the same in comphance with his 
example. But this is no proof of their sitting at prayer, 
but only after prayer was ended ; a nd that, too, grounded 
upon a very weak and superstitious opinion, that every 
circumstance of an action or narration, however indif- 
ferent in itself, w^as to be drawn into example and to be 
made matter of necessary duty, according to which way 
of reasoning, as Tertullian observes, they must have 
worshipped nowhere but where there was a bed, nor sat 
upon a chair or bench because it would have been a de- 
viation from their example. He adds that the heathen 
only were used to sit after prayer before their idols, and 
for that very reason it was not fit for Christians to imi- 
tate their practice. All which shows that the Christians 



VESTMEXTS. 



321 



then were so far from using sitting as a posture of devo- 
tion, that they did not think it proper to sit even after 
prayer in the presence of God, whilst the Angel of Prayer 
stood by them, and because it looked mere like a heath- 
enish than a Christian practice." 

It appears then that the formalities to which Denom- 
inationalists object in the worship of the Episcopal 
Church, are justified by reason, Scripture and history, 
and consequently that their own practice is condemned 
by this tribunal from which there is no appeal. 



HE prejudice of many against the Episcopal 



Church chiefly grows out of the vestments worn 



by her Clergy while conducting Divine Service. 
A representative of this class said to the writer: "There 
is one thing about your Church which I fear I can never 
become reconciled to, and that is the wearing of gowns." 
An effort will now be made to answer this objection to 
the Church. 

It will be remembered that God gave minute direc- 
tions concerning the attire of the Jewish Ministry which 
bears much the same relation to the Christian that the 
bud does to the flower. In Exodus 28: 2, we read: 
''And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy 
brother, for glory and for beauty." Dr. Adam Clarke, 
the great Methodist commentator, speaking on this 
text says: "The white surplice in the Service of the 
Church is almost the only thing that remains of those 
ancient and becoming vestments, which God commanded 
to be made 'for glory and beauty.' Clothing, as em- 
blematical of ofilce, is of more consequence than is gen- 
erally imagined." -Chalmers, a Presbyterian divine, 



III. 



VESTMENTS. 




C. A.— 21 



322 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHtJECH. 



commenting on the same passage, says: "There is 
here a distinct sanction given to the association of 
outward splendor with the office of the ministry— if not 
such as to make it imperative or indispensable, at least 
as to condemn the intolerance of those who stand op- 
posed to it. In the antipathy to priestly garments, 
and in the controversies which have been raised about 
them, I can take no share." 

The use of ministerial vestments and insignia of 
office is also justified by a deep-rooted instinct which 
in all ages, our own not excepted, has found universal 
expression. It is this instinct which accounts for the 
gowns worn by the Judges of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, the uniforms of our army and navy, and 
the epaulets of their ofl^icers. Even the members and 
officials of secret orders are distinguished by regalia, 
scarfs and badges. This being the case, the use of 
sanctuary vestments cannot reasonably and consistently 
be objected to. As has been well said: "When objec- 
tion is made to our Church on this ground, may we not 
fairly reply that, to be consistent, the objector must 
insist upon the oflficer's laying aside his uniform ; that he 
must oppose the badges and regaha of the different orders 
and societies, and that when he has abohshed all these, 
we shall be prepared to allow his objection some weight, 
but not until then?" If this book should chance to 
fall into the hands of some good Methodist objectors 
to our vestments and Services, the knowledge that 
through all his life John Wesley regularly used both, 
may go far towards reconciling such to them. Except 
in his field preaching, which w^as never allowed to con- 
flict with the Church's Services, he always wore essen- 
tially the same Priestly garments and read the same 
prayers that are now seen and heard in the Episcopal 
Church SerAHce. 



VESTMENTS. 



323 



The sanctuary vestments convey symbolic instruction. 
Not to go into particulars, the white surplice reminds 
both minister and people that they should be clothed 
in righteousness, and the stole, that they must bear the 
yoke of Christ. But aside from their teaching value, 
our vestments serve a very practical purpose. So far 
as appearance in the Chancel is concerned, they place 
those whose circumstances oblige them to wear "home 
spun " on the same footing with their brethren who are 
able to go about in "soft clothing." 

In view of the Scripturalness of Ecclesiastical vest- 
ments, of their varied usefulness and of the fact that 
some peculiarity of dress is almost universally adopted 
as the insignia of office, it seems surpassingly strange 
that the first English Separatists went out, because the 
Church did not discard the Bishop's robe and the 
Priest's surplice and stole which they were pleased to 
characterize as "the rags of Popery." But this objec- 
tion, though persistently urged for three hundred and 
fifty years, at last bids fair to give way before the gen- 
eral reaction towards the Church and her ways. I, my- 
self, have seen Presbyterian ministers in this country 
attired in black silk gowns — white would have been 
more appropriate — conducting a liturgical Service. In 
Scotland where the cassock, gown and bands are more 
common I heard a "Parson" read our evening prayer 
with but few omissions, and this in old St. Giles, Edin- 
burgh, where the apocryphal "Jenny Geddes" in the 
year 1637, cast a stool at the surpliced minister who 
ventured to reestablish the Church of England worship. 

It may be observed in passing that the clerical suits 
which most of our clergymen wear, are also justifiable 
on several accounts. The ability readily to distinguish 
ministers from laymen is highly advantageous— it tends 
to make the Clerg}^ so many witnesses for Christ, 



824 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCS. 



known to all men ; it sometimes renders them useful to 
strangers who but for the distinctive habit, would not 
be aware of their high-calling ; it often checks improper 
conversation, profanity, rudeness and violence. 

lY. 

LACK OF VITAL RELIGION. 
/"^^F course others must be our judges in this deli- 



cate matter, and, if this be their just verdict, it 



is becoming that w^e should submit without pro- 
test, and humbly begin a reformation. And, yet, I 
trust that I am not going beyond the bounds of pro- 
priety in calling attention to the fact that there is a 
difference of opinion as to whether the possession of 
"vital rehgion" is demonstrated by pious profession, 
or by good works. If, as St. James seems to teach, it 
consists in the latter rather than in the former, the 
Episcopal Church will compare favorably with any 
other body of Christians of equal size. Indeed, the 
assertion may be safely ventured that in places where 
we are as Avell represented as others, none give or do 
as much for the cause of beneficence. Our contri- 
butions to hospitals and other institutions of mercy 
in New York and Philadelphia, and in most of the 
principal cities, are much greater than those of any 
other Christian body. I happen to have at hand a clip- 
ping from "The Churchman" of December 24, 1887, 
which forcibly illustrates the truth of this assertion: 
"In New York the Hospital Sunday collection is taken 
in the Churches on the last Sunday of the year, and in 
the Synagogues on the preceding Saturday. In 1886 
the various Denominations were represented as follows: 
Episcopal, $16,578.12; Presbyterian, $6,458.27; Con- 




LACK OF VITAL RELIGION. 



325 



gregational, |3,520.08; Synagogues, f 1,602.06 ; Meth- 
odist, $1,402.00; Keformed, |1,262.92; Lutheran, 
1770.57; Baptist, f 368.53; Unitarian, f 227.00; Uni- 
versaUst, $122.70; Roman Cathohc, $108.13; Sweden- 
borgiaD, $92.50; Ethical Culture, $92.00; Friends, 
$60.00; other Churches, $119.42. Total, $32,784.30." 
Observe that the Episcopal Church gave towards the 
support of hospitals on Hospital Sunday, 1886, $185.- 
97 more than half of the whole collection. And there 
can be but little doubt that this showing is substan- 
tially true of every year. Moreover with the possible 
exception of the Romanists, Episcopalians in all our 
great cities outnumber the active workers of other 
bodies in the various fields of charity. We bespeak for 
these facts a candid consideration on the part of those 
who think they are justified in alleging that the Epis- 
copal Church is behind other Christian bodies touch- 
ing "fervent piety" or "vital religion." 

Much of the talk about the Episcopal Church's lack in 
this respect, is due to the erroneous impression that true 
religion consists in not doing certain things, such as 
dancing, card playing and attending theatres, and that 
people who do these things cannot be sincere Christians. 
But may not those Avho do them, ask their critics, "Who 
art thou that judgeth another man's servant? To his 
own master [conscience] he standeth or falleth." In the 
face of the fact that Solomon said there is "a time to 
laugh " and "a time to dance," and that our Saviour 
attended the wedding at Cana, where, if this was like 
other Jewish marriage feasts, and there is every reason 
for believing that it was, there were feasting, wine-drink- 
ing, merry-making and dancing, what Scriptural ground 
have our accusers for alleging that a Church which 
does not forbid these things "is lacking in vital reli-. 
gion?" 



326 



OBJECTION'S TO THE EPISCOPAL CHFECH. 



It IS represented that many join the Episcopal Church 
because she does not forbid amusements; but it would 
be nearer the truth to say that this Church is the first 
choice of some because she makes no unreasonable and 
unscnptural requirements of her members, and allows 
them to conduct their private and home life in accord 
with the dictates of conscience and natural preferences of 
taste, so long as the moral and social law of God is not 
broken. We admit that we have too much worldliness 
among us and would not say one word in its justifica- 
tion. But I would respectfully remind those who re- 
proach our Church because of this fault in some of her 
members, that people who hve in glass houses should 
not recklessly throw stones. The votaries of society are 
not by any means exclusively Episcopalians. In>act 
so evenly are the various Protestant Denominations 
represented, that none should venture to take the 
mote out of the eye of his brother religionist without 
first making quite sure that there is not a beam in his 
own eye. 

A Church which stands second to no body of Chris- 
tians in her contributions of both money and workers 
to the cause of benevolence; which has preachers of right- 
eousness who shrink not from rebuking sin, even "in 
high places," which, in every age of the history of the 
Enghsh-speaking race, has produced such Saints as Al- 
ban, the Venerable Bede, Dunstan, Becket, Grosseteste, 
Wyckliffe, Kidley, Cranmer, Latimer, Taylor, Ken, Wes- 
ley, Wilberforce, Bloomfield, Bickersteth, Keble, Selwyn, 
Patteson, Muhlenberg, Hannington, and ten thousand 
times ten thousand besides, who, though less distin- 
guished, have their names no less surely recorded in the 
Lamb's Book of Life— a Church, I say, which has pro- 
duced, and is producing, such philanthropists, such 
preachers, such Saints, should not be reproached with a 



COMPOSED OF THE UPPEE CLASSES. 



327 



want of "vital religion." If " fervent piety" does not 
exist in the Episcopal Church, will her critics kindly tell 
us what it is, and where it may be found ? 

V. 

COMPOSED OF THE UPPEB CLASSES. 

IT is objected that the Episcopal Church is composed 
of the upper classes to the exclusion of the masses. 
Granting for the time being that this objection is 
well founded, I wish to show that it should not, as it 
certainly Avill not, permanently prejudice thoughtful 
people against this Church, but rather attract them to 
her. For such will- readily perceive that the dominant 
people of a community must have a Church home as well 
as their poorer and perhaps less cultured neighbors, and 
that, if it be true that the Episcopal Church furnishes a 
home for them, it should be cordially welcomed and 
kindly spoken of by all. 

And we are also of the opinion that, if this popular 
estimation of the Episcopal Church be really true, the 
day is not far distant when people will begin to inquire, 
Why is it so ? And, if I mistake not, the answer to this 
question will contribute to account for, and to increase, 
the Church's rapid growth, which, of late, has been a 
source of so great encouragement to her members and 
friends. For the answer must be that this Church is 
the home of the dominant people of the country, either 
because she possesses decidedly superior qualities which 
recommend her to the broader and more intelligent 
elements of American society, or else that by her more 
complete system of rehgious culture she tends to make 
her adherents dominant. Either of these answers to 
the inquiry, Why is the Episcopal Church the home in 



328 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



SO many instances of the leaders in the social, political 
and commercial world, will, as time goes on, and mis- 
understanding is corrected, do more to commend than 
to condemn her to the thoughtful. 

But we will not admit that the Episcopal Church is 
composed almost exclusively, or even principally, of the 
wealthy and cultivated. In her, as in all bodies of 
Christians, the great middle class fortunately predomi- 
nates; they are the back-bone and sinew of "the 
Churches" as well as of the country; moreover, it is 
from them that the more highly favored few arise. We 
have very little aristocracy by inheritance in the United 
States. It is doubtless true that proportionately more 
of the sons and daughters of the Episcopal Church than 
of any other Christian body rise to the first rank in the 
commercial, professional, official, and social life of the 
country. One of our most learned and judicious clergy- 
men, who, because of his fairness towards the Denomi- 
nations, was held in the highest estimation by them, 
and was for many years the President of their local 
ministerial association, told me in his old age that 
the observation of a long life convinced him that the 
ability of the Episcopal Church to make the most of her 
children amounts to a species of genius which is not 
paralleled in any other commimion. Speaking of the 
of outlying smaller cities and towns, with the 
working of which he had an intimate acquaintance, he 
said that he had always observed that when a young 
couple connect themselves with the Episcopal Church, 
they, in a remarkable number of cases, begin to grow 
in every form of prosperity, and continue until they 
outgrow the place; then they move to some large city 
where ultimately they take first rank. He had met with 
so many instances of this kind under such varying 
conditions, and had seen comparatively so little of it 



COMPOSED OF THE UPPER CLASSES. 



329 



outside, that he was persuaded that the elevating influ- 
ence of the Church was one of her distinguishing char- 
acteristics. After having my attention called to this 
interesting matter, I found that my own, up to that 
time, comparatively limited observation tended to cor- 
roborate the representation of my aged fiiend. A 
more or less systematic inquiry subsequently^ instituted, 
convinces me that he was right so far, at least, as the 
Diocese of Ohio is concerned. As an illustration in point, 
I could name a town of less than 10,000 inhabitants 
from which fifteen of the young people, a few days be- 
fore the writing of this passage, started off to various 
widely-separated seminaries and colleges of higher edu- 
cation. All, with possibly one exception, came from 
the so-called middle class parentage. The majority of 
them are sure to better their condition in life. Is it not 
remarkable that twelve of the fifteen should be com- 
municants of the Episcopal Church, which is the small- 
est Christian body of the town, being still a mission 
station? Some years ago a layman, in showing me the 
village in which he lived, pointed ont our little board 
chapel, and, by way of apology for its insignificant ap- 
pearance as compared with other places of worship, 
told me that almost every young man who had risen 
above mediocrity and made for himself a name, had 
gone out from that Sunday School and Church. Two 
of the Clerical deputies of the General Convention of 
A. D. 1895 were from that little town and congregation. 

And as for the very poor I am sorry to say that not 
many of them are found in any of "the churches," but 
I am glad to be able to testify that so far as my obser- 
vation goes they are just as welcome in the most fash- 
ionable congregations of Episcopalians as they are in 
the corresponding congregations of other Christian 
bodies. And none are more solicitous— I do not except 



330 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH. 



Eomanists — that the poor shall have the Gospel 
preached to them without money and without price." 
In our large cities we have more down-town Churches 
—Churches which are kept for the poor population— 
than any other body of Protestant Christians. Before 
making up the programme for the last Triennial Council 
of the Congregational body, the committee requested 
distinguished delegates to suggest topics for considera- 
tion. In one of the replies this subject was suggested: 
''Why is the Episcopal Church above all others success- 
ful in attracting to her Communion both the high- 
est and the lowest classes of society?" And that the 
Episcopal Church has a better title than any Christian 
body to be called the Church of the Enghsh-speaking 
poor, will be put beyond doubt if we rise to a world-wide 
view of the subject. The Anglican Communion, includ- 
ing the Church of England, and her colonial branches, 
and the Episcopal Church of the United States, has 
about twenty-eight milKons of adherents. It is a low 
estimate to say that two-thirds, or fourteen millions of 
these belong to the poorer classes. Now the largest of 
the other bodies, not excepting the Koman, have not 
fourteen milKons of English-speaking adherents, includ- 
ing both rich and poor; and as none of them, except 
possibly the Roman Church, has a greater proportion 
of the poor than the Anghcan Communion, she is clearly 
entitled to the credit of being recognized above all 
others as the Church of the Enghsh-speaking poor. 

"Oh, the poor man's friend is the Church of Christ, 
From birth to his funeral day ; 
She makes him the Lord's, in her surpliced arms, 
And singeth his burial lay." 



VI. 



BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 

IN support of this charge Denominationalists affirm 
that we do not allow their ministers to preach in 
our pulpits, that we refuse to admit their members 
to our Communion, and that we do not recognize their 
organizations as being true Churches. Now, though 
there is some difference of opinion and practice among 
us touching these things, yet, upon the whole, candor 
requires that we should plead guilty to each of the 
accusations. Therefore, unless we can satisfactorily ex- 
plain our conduct, it would seem that the charge of 
bigotry and uncharitableness is sustained. 

What then have we to say in justification of our 
refusal to allow the ministers of the various Denomina- 
tions to conduct our Services? It should of course be 
remarked that one of our canons or laws, makes it 
impossible for us to join in the practice of exchanging 
pulpits that is common among some of the Denomina- 
tions—I say some, for the custom is not universal 
among them. The Congregationalists, Presbyterians, 
Methodists, Baptists, English Lutherans, United Breth- 
ren, and a few others are accustomed to more or less 
frequent interchanges, and to joining in Union Temper- 
ance, Thanksgiving and Revival Services. But none of 
these would exchange with a Universalist or Unitarian, 
because they do not believe these Denominations to be 
orthodox. 

And right here we touch upon the principal of the 
reasons why we do not exchange with any of the 

(331) 



332 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



Denominations about us. For though as compared 
with Unitarians they are sound in doctrine, yet the 
various non-Episcopal Denominations are, in our esti- 
mation, unsound touching what we regard as funda- 
mentals. Not to mention other differences between 
them and ourselves, they believe that any man can 
found a Church, and, on this ground, justify their sep- 
aration from the historic Church of Christ and the 
Apostles, while we maintain that schism is a great sin, 
and that the attempt to defend it is a grievous error.' 
This being our honest conviction, we certainly should 
be accorded as much right to exclude them from our 
pulpits as they exercise in the case of those with whom 
they do not agree. From the standing point of the 
Universalists and Unitarians they are as bigoted and 
uncharitable as we are from theirs. 

Those who make the comp'laint seek to justify it by 
arguments based upon the goodness and ability of their 
ministers. We do not question their possession of these 
qualities, but on the other hand are ready to pay the 
tribute of highest respect and admiration to many of 
the Denominational ministers whom we know. If it 
were a question of personal holiness or of learning and 
aptness to teach, we should certainly often be found 
humbly sitting at the feet of some of them. But these 
virtues have nothing to do with the matter in dispute. 
If they had, those who rank themselves among the so- 
called ''Evangehcal Denominations " would be obliged 
to admit to their pulpits Unitarian ministers, manv of 
whom are distinguished for their piety and erudition. 
It is a question of right and wrong-of whether or not 
we are at liberty to change the Divine order by encour- 
aging division in the Body of Christ through the aban- 
donment of the divinely-instituted ministry of three 
orders, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Thus' the argu- 



BIGOTED AXD EXCLUSITE. 



333 



ment from the moral and intellectual fitness of the 
Denominational ministers is not pertinent. It is 
exactly the gTound ^Yhich Korali and his companv took 
against Moses and Aaron, ^vhen they wanted to justify 
their intended usurpation of the Priesthood. They com- 
plained bitterly that Moses and Aaron kept the sacred 
oflSces to themselves, whereas all the congregation was 
holy. No Episcopahan has ever been more berated for 
his exclusiveness— more r-eproached with thinking too 
much of himself and despising his brethren than were 
Moses and Aaron. 'And they gathered themselves to- 
gether against them and said unto them. Ye take too 
much upon you seeing all the congregation are holy, 
every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Where- 
fore then lift ye up yourselves above the coDgregation 
of the Lord?' Xow^ you will remember that this man, 
Moses, was the meekest of men. He did not deserve the 
reproach of thinking his house better than the other 
famihes of Israel, for hew-as but carrying out God's 
ordinance, ' that no stranger ^Yllic•h was not of the 
house of Levi should come near to offer incense.' " 

Is it not possible that our exclusiveness, hke that of 
Moses, is a matter of principle, and not an evidence of 
pride and bigotry? Certainly there are hundreds of 
thousands among us who feel that w^e must stand by 
the One, Holy, Cathohc and Apostolic Church of the 
Enghsh race, and say: There is no Divine warrant for 
the Denominational theory; no trace of it is in the Bible 
or the early Church. It is not the system instituted by 
our Lord for the evangehzation of the world. It can 
remedy no evil , for it is in itself by the strife it engenders, 
and by the uncertainty and disputation in which it in- 
volves rehgious truth and duty, an evil incalculable." 
Because we feel and say these things are we therefore 
justly stigmatized as exclusive bigots ? No, we should 



B34 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

rather be honored for having the courage of our convic- 
tion. 

But even if there were no principle at stake, we could 
not as a rule exchange with the Denominational Min- 
isters for the simple reason that they would be un- 
willing to take our places and incapable of doing so. 
This practical and well-nigh insuperable difficultv may 
be aptly illustrated by an actual occurrence which the 
samtly Bishop Bedell, who certainly could not be ac- 
cused of uncharitableness towards the Denominations, 
used to tell to the great amusement of his auditors'. 
The Bishop, as nearly as I can remember, gave 
the story as follows: I placed a young Deacon in 

charge of the parish at ■ . He soon identified 

himself with the local ministerial association, and this 
being contrary to the pohcy of his predecessors, he be- 
came unusually popular. His popularity, however, was 
not destined to continue long. He came among them 
m October. In January the Association determined to 
inaugurate a Union Eevival in which all the Protestant 
ministers should take part. The Methodists, Presby- 
terians, English Lutherans, Baptists and Episcopalians 
were represented. All their ministers entered into the 
arrangement. The Services were to be held on each 
evening of the week, except Saturday, in the several 
churches in a prearranged order. It so happened 
either by design or accident, that the turn for opening 
the Episcopal Church to the Revival came last. The 
Deacon, therefore, went the round of the other churches 
and all were pleased by his presence and at the readi- 
ness and ease with which he took the various parts of 
the Service that were assigned to him from time to time 
Indeed he was rapidly gaining for himself the reputation 
of being unusually broad-minded and brotherly for an 
Episcopal Clergyman, and it was even hinted that if 



BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 



335 



he would only let himself down a little in speech and 
bearing, he might make a first-class Kevivahst. But his 
reputation for liberality was suddenly blasted and their 
hope of his becoming an Evangelist withered upon the 
occasion of the holding of the Service in our house of 
worship. This resulted from a most unexpected and 
embarrassing hitch. It would seem that the Deacon 
was either truer to his colors, or else that he was more 
of a wag than had been suspected. For it was dis- 
covered quite too late that he had taken the precaution 
of providing surphces and Prayer Books for all. As the 
brethren came straggling through the Church towards 
the Chancel, where they expected to place their hats and 
overcoats upon "the Holy Table," and to take their 
seats to see and to be seen until "the exercises" should 
begin, they were pohtely conducted into the vestry- 
room. When all had assembled, the Deacon, to their 
utter surprise began to hand out the surplices. Of 
course there was a chorus of protests. The Deacon, 
however, calmly, and with dignity, reminded them that 
all, including himself, had, at the services so far held, 
respected the customs of the several churches visited, 
and that he very much desired that there should be no 
departure from this reasonable and courteous proced- 
ure. Of course no satisfactory answer could be made 
to this argument, and so there was nothing for the par- 
sons to do but to submit. Accordingly, each, with what 
grace he could, put on a surplice and accepted a Prayer 
Book. The Deacon having apportioned the Service be- 
tween them, led the procession into the Chancel to the 
great astonishment of the congregation, which was 
composed of Christians of every name. They then went 
on with the Evening Prayer, taking the part appointed 
to them, respectively ; but they had not proceeded far 
when they became hopelessly mixed and exceedingly 



336 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



embarrassed. At the conclusion of each portion of the 
Service there was an awkward break until the Deacon 
would come to the rescue by finding the place. There 
was, as may be imagined, an utter absence of dignity 
and solemnity. It is needless to observe that the minis- 
ters of the town in which the unique Service took place 
never again asked the Deacon, or any of his successors, 
to join them in union meetings. 

I have related this anecdote at some length because 
it well illustrates the practical difficulties in the way of 
our exchanging pulpits with Denominational ministers. 
There is scarcely one in a hundred of them that can 
render our Services, and perhaps fewer still who would 
be willing to wear our vestments, and conform to the 
customary postures. It is hoped that after this expla- 
nation, the Denominational reader will not again accuse 
us of bigotry and uncharitableness because we do not 
exchange pulpits. 

As to the Lord's Supper the Anglican Communion is 
no more exclusive to-day than she, with the other Apos- 
tolic Churches, has been for eighteen hundred years. 
Her law is set forth in the Offices for Adult Baptism 
and Confirmation: "It is expedient that every per- 
son thus baptized should be confirmed by the Bishop so 
soon after his Baptism as conveniently maybe; that so 
he may be admitted to the Holy Communion;" and 
" There shall be none admitted to the Holy Communion 
until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and 
desirous to be confirmed. " These Rubrics were designed 
to maintain the Scriptural position of Confirmation. 
Their framers had no thought of excluding any from 
the Lord's Supper. The object was rather to indicate 
the way of coming. Those who will not take it exclude 
themselves. The adherents of other bodies of Christians 
do not often present themselves at our Altars, nor 



BIGOTED AND EXCLTTSIYE. 



337 



is there as much inter-Communion bet^Yeen the members 
of the various non-Episcopal Denominations as is com- 
monly supposed. However, when any Baptized but 
unconfirmed persons present themselves, it may be 
said to be generally true that our Clergy do not assume 
the responsibility of denying them. Even those who 
interpret the rubrical law most rigidly seldom turn 
such away, because they attribute what is lacking in 
them for the want of Confirmation to the failure, o wing- 
to defective teaching, to apprehend the importance of 
that xVpostohc Ordinance, and hope that they will 
receive it as soon as they can be taught more perfectly 
concerning the Divinely appointed way. 

But it is claimed that there is abundant evidence 
against us in the alleged fact that we do not regard the 
various Denominations as being true Churches. As Mr. 
Gladstone has pointed out, it is no reply to the Church- 
man's argument to cry out that it "unchurches" Dis- 
senting communions. He reminds them that when the 
Puritans " contended against the Prelatical constitution 
of the Church of England by arguing that the entire con- 
stitution of the Church was defined in the AVord of God, 
and that that constitution was exclusively Presbj'te- 
rian," this allegation "was met, not by complaints of its 
' unchurching' the Church of England, but an examina- 
tion of its matter and foundation." However, no offi- 
cial document of this Church can be cited in which we 
make any declaration in regard to the status of any of 
the Denominations. Nevertheless it should be admitted 
that the great majority of our Clergy, and many of 
our Laity, feel that the unhistorical Denominations are 
at best defective Churches. It is evident that if we were 
to entertain such feelings without good and sufficient 
reasons, the accusation of uncharitableness might justly 
be made. But in consideration of the fact that all of 

C. A.— 22 



338 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH. 



the Denominations, concerning which these views are en- 
tertained, were organized at least fifteen hundred years 
after the time of Christ and the Apostles, and that they 
have abandoned certain features both of doctrine and 
government which hadalwa^'S been universally regarded 
by Catholic Christians as essential to the constitution of 
a true Church, and are still so considered by fully nine- 
tenths of Christendom, we may justly feel ourselves ag- 
grieved at being stigmatized as narrow, exclusive bigots 
because we refuse to go contrary to all tradition and to 
the conviction of the great majority of hving Christians, 
by recognizing the organizations of, for example, Luth- 
er, Calvin, and Wesley, all less than three hundred and 
fifty years old, as Apostolic and Catholic Churches of 
Christ. 

It is argued that the prosperity which has attended 
the organizations which they represent, is an evidence 
of God's favor, and of his special recognition of them. 
Some, therefore, would have us believe that as St. Paul, 
who, halving had no connection with Christ and His 
Apostles, was specially called out of season to be an 
Apostle, so they have been called out of due time to be 
Churches. But the analogy is not complete enough to 
hold. The claims of St. Paul, because of the miracles 
which he performed, were recognized by the rest of the 
Apostles. Moreover, he did not found a new Church. 
On the contrary he constantly condemned divisions and 
illustrated the importance of unity by the strongest 
imagery. If God, through the founders of the various 
Denominations, had really called new Churches into 
existence. He would certainly have caused them to have 
been recognized by the undoubted Historic Churches, as 
St. Paul's Apostleship was by the original Apostles. 
But none of them are in communion with any branch 
of the old Church. 



BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 



339 



Nor will the argument based upon the rapid prog- 
ress and great size of some of the Denominations, carry 
conviction to the thoughtful. The schism in the Jew- 
ish Church comprised ten tribes, while only two re- 
mained faithful to the old Church which was, neverthe- 
less, the true Church of God. No modern Denomination 
has had a more phenomenal growth than Arianism. 
In the short space of fifty years it sprang up and 
drew almost half of Christendom after it, and numbered 
among its millions of adherents, the Koman Emperors 
and Rulers. But Arianism was not, therefore, a part of 
the Catholic Church of Christ. Granting, however, for the 
sake of argument, that the question of Catholicity can 
be decided by the number of adherents to a system, the 
verdict must be, as matters now stand and have stood 
ever since the Reformation, against the pretensions of 
the Denominations to Cathohcity. For there are cer- 
tainly not more than fifty millions of them, while there 
are three hundred and fifty millions of us. Thus, from 
whatever point of view, it is impossible for the Denom- 
inations to make good against the Episcopal Church 
the accusation of uncharitableness. 



But let us now examine this charge of exclusiveness 
from another point of view. There are almost always 
two ways of looking at such questions. As we look at 
it, those who make the accusation are really the violat- 
ors of charity. And this because upon uncharitable 
grounds they have withdrawn from the Mother Church, 
and have fenced themselves in with new conditions of 
Church membership, and excluded all, who, for any rea- 
son, do not see fit to comply with the novel require- 
ments. Rome and the Denominations are alike in this 
respect. The older Sectarian bodies went out from us, 



840 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAl CHTJECH. 



not because we were too narrow and bigoted, but be- 
cause the}^ themselves were not broad and tolerant 
enough to remain in the ancient and spacious fold. We 
are well aware that it is often maintained that they 
were driven out. It would be an easy task to prove to 
the contrary by evidence that might be accumulated 
from almost every page of the Reformation histories. 
But there is a much shorter cut to the truth. It is by 
showing that this way of accounting for the origin of 
the first sects proves quite too much. If their with- 
drawal was due to the parent's intolerance, what are we 
to conclude in the case of the sects which soon sprang 
from themselves ? The census shows that in the United 
States, the Presbyterians have divided and sub-divided 
twelve times ; the Baptists have done the same thirteen 
times, and the Methodists seventeen times. If the orig- 
inal Denominations could truthfully account for their 
exodus on the score of illiberality, why may not those 
who sprang from them justify their separation on the 
same ground ? Out of the five or six Denominations of 
the Revolutionary period, have come one hundred and 
forty-three. Excepting the Episcopal and Roman 
Churches, each of these accounts for its existence by at- 
tributing intolerance to its Mother. As only three or 
four of all the Denominations now in the country are 
the direct offspring of the Episcopal and Roman Com- 
munions, it follows that about one hundred and forty 
of them must be traced, if the theory of the origin of 
sects under consideration be correct, to the bigotry 
of the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, 
Mennonites, Adventists, and the rest of the long list 
which is ever growing longer. Thus, if the Episcopal 
Church be exclusive, it would appear that none of the 
older Denominations are in a position to stone her for 
the fault. 



BIGOTED AND EXCLUSIVE. 



341 



But the theory of maternal intolerance is not the 
true solution of sectarianism. It is due rather to the 
exclusiveness and bigotry of the child itself. There is of 
course a sense in which the Episcopal Church is exclu- 
sive. She must, as a braiich of the Catholic Church, 
exclude from membership aU who do not accept Christ 
as the Divine Saviour of the world, and from her com^ 
m union all open and notorious evil livers. She is im 
deed fenced about by the Catholic Creeds and the Moral 
Law, but there is nothing of human construction to keep 
people out. The only fence that exists, was constructed 
by God Himself through Moses, the Apostles and Ecu- 
menical Councils. But the Denominations did not 
consider this fence of Divine regulation sufficient. They 
felt called upon to supplement it by hedges of their own 
planting. The Presbyterians were determined literally 
to wall us in with the ''Westminster Confession;" the 
Baptists insisted on surrounding us with a deep moat 
fihed to the brim with water ; the Methodists wanted to 
hedge us about with their pecuhar doctrines of saving 
faith, instantaneous conversion and experimental re- 
ligion. The Church did not deny her children the privi- 
lege of holding the views of Calvin, WilUams and Wesley, 
but she refused to allow these views to become so many 
barriers to membership and communion. It was held 
that inasmuch as the Church is a Divine institution, 
God alone has a right to impose conditions of entrance. 
And because the rest of the flock refused to be hedged in, 
the sectaries withdrew, in order that their ideas might 
be carried out in their own narrow enclosure. 

"It strikes one," says Bishop Thompson. " as rather 
a queer thing that these people should charge the 
Church with ' exclusiveness ; ' that they should take 
their own special sin and lay it on her shoulders. They 
each had their birth in exclusiveness. The Church was 



342 OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH. 

not holy enough nor orthodox enough, and so the sect 
was created to exclude all but the saints. This is the 
historic beo-inning of every sect. It excludes all but 
Itself from the Kingdom of God. With the early Puri- 
tans, whatever was outside of Puritanism was of Satan 
The Church, especially, was of the evil one. The only 
body m the land which demands onlv Christianity as a 
test of membership, which does not supplement Chris- 
tianity with some ism as an essential to fellow^ship is 
the Protestant Episcopal Church." 

Bishop Tail's remarks concerning the comprehen- 
siveness of the Church as compared with Denomination- 
ahsm are also to the point and equally forcible: 

''The Church is founded upon unity and universality; 

"Sectarianism is founded upon unity without univer- 
sality. 

"The Church is founded upon law and hberty ; 
"Sectarianism is founded upon law without hberty. 
"The Church is founded upon conformity and com- 
promise; 

"Sectarianism is founded upon conformity without 
compromise. 

"The Church in its practical operation produces for- 
bearance ; 

"Sectarianism in its practical operation produces 
intolerance." 

The comprehensiveness of the Episcopal Church is 
manifest from the fact that she contains so many dif- 
ferent schools of thought. There are among us High, 
Low, and Broad Churchmen. These differ with each 
other on as many points and as radically as do the var- 
ious Denominations, and yet there is as much unity and 
harmony wdth us as in any other body of Christians. 
This is accounted for by the fact that, while Episcopa- 
lians are required to adhere to the faith set forth in the 



LIKE THE EOMAX CATHO1.IC. 



343 



Catholic Creeds and to submit to the government of the 
Historic Episcopate, they are. in respect to all compar- 
atively indifferent matters of doctrine and conduct, per- 
mitted the largest liberty. Under such circumstances 
men always form themselves into parties. For example, 
in this land of the free '' we have at present Democrats, 
Eepubhcans, Populists, and others, each denouncing the 
rest, but all respecting the Constitution and the powers 
that be. and so, paradoxical as it may seem in view of 
our wranghng, we are really one of the most united and 
harmonious of nations. The opinion prevails with 
Americans that the country is upon the whole the better 
for political combinations and agitations. Episcopa- 
lians generally feel the same about then- divisions into 
Schools of Churchmanship. It is thought that, if there 
were a dead level of agreement among us. our Ecclesias- 
tical waters would soon become stagnant. 



LIKE THE BOM AX CATHOLIC. 

HIS objection so frequently urged against the vari- 
ous branches of the Anglican Communion, is 



based upon partly real and partly imaginary re- 
semblances in her system to that of the Eoman Church. 
That there are some striking similarities we are ready 
enough to admit, but that they are of a character to 
justify the conclusion that there is no essential difference 
between the Episcopal and the Roman Church cannot be 
allowed. For there are many important doctrinal and 
ceremonial points about which we differ fundament- 
ally. And even where the resemblance is most strik- 
ing, objectors haA^e always found it impossible to prove 
that the condemned doctrine or ceremonyis contrary to 



YII. 




344 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



Scripture or the teachiug and practice of the earlier, 
purer ages. 

The objection, in short, is based upon the erroneous 
idea, that, because the Church of Kome has erred in 
many points, she has done so in all, and that, therefore, 
a Church is reformed only in proportion as she has de- 
parted from the Eoman faith and ritual. This, as an 
old writer points out, is because ''man is a creature of 
extremes. The middle path is generally the wise path; 
but there are few wise enough to find it. Because Pap- 
ists have made too much of some things, Protestants 
have made too little of them. The Papists treat man 
as all sense; and, therefore, some Protestants would 
treat him as all spirit. Because one party has exalted 
the Virgin Mary to a Divinity, the other can scarcelv 
thmk of that 'most highly favored among women' 
with common respect. The Papist puts the Apocrypha 
mto his Canon ; the Protestant will scarcely regard it 
as an ancient record. The Popish heresy, human merit 
m justification, drove Luther, on the other side, into the 
most unwarrantable and unscriptural statements of 
that doctrine. The Papists consider grace as insepara- 
ble from the participation in the Sacraments ; the Prot- 
estants too often lose sight of them as instituted 
means of conveying grace." 

Now, it is the glory of the Episcopal Church, that she 
has avoided both the extremes of Romanism and Prot- 
estantism. The testimony of the objectors from both 
quarters proves this. For the representatives of each 
m turn accuse us of being identified with the other. 
Romanists declare that we are Protestants, and Prot- 
estants constantly represent us as Romanists. Their 
witness, as a whole, therefore proves that we are neither 
the one nor the other. We are essentially unlike either of 
these extreme wings of Christendom. Ve occupy the 



LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 



345 



middle ground between them. Between the Seylla and 
the Charybdis of perverted CathoUcism and Protestant- 
ism, we steer the middle course, having inscribed on 
our banner the motto : 

" Catholic for every truth of God ; 
Protestant against every error of man." 

The fact that we are so far removed from both, ac- 
counts for the mistake which each makes in classing us 
with the other. 

It cannot be denied that there is, according to the 
tastes and preferences of our Clergy and congregations, 
a more or less striking resemblance between the Roman 
and Anghcan Communions in the nonessentials of cere- 
monies and ornaments. But, however it may be with 
Romanists in these things, Anglicans almost without 
exception stop short of superstition and idolatry. If, 
indeed, there be any exceptions, they are so few as not 
to disprove the general rule of the past three hundred 
years. We do not deny that there are a few among us 
who prefer the Ultramontane nomenclature and ritual, 
and indeed persistently use them, notwithstanding their 
well-known offensiveness to the vast majority of the 
Anglican Communion. But the extreme Mediaeval cere- 
monialism that has been adopted by a congregation here 
and there of which, merely because of its exceptional 
character, we read so much, is not at all representative 
of the Episcopal Church as a whole, and there is not the 
ghost of a probability that it will ever become so. After 
all these years there is not on an average more than one 
or two of these extremely ritualistic parishes in a Dio- 
cese. Our Bishops, Clergy, and Laity, with very few 
exceptions, will never consent to abandon the dignified 
position which we occupy as the American branch of the 



346 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH. 



historic Catholic Church of the English race. As such 
we have our own traditions, customs and forms of 
worship, which if less elaborate and showy, are more in 
harmony with the sturdy, sober qualities of the Anglo- 
Saxon people than anything which has been imported 
from aesthetic, gaudy Italy. If there must be imitation, 
let Rome, which whether from a poHtical or intellectual 
point of view is much more likely to be Anglicanized 
than we are to be Romanized, do the imitating. The 
Anglican Church was compelled to conform more or less 
closely to the Itahan when Rome was "the mistress of 
the world," but now that the position of the Enghsh 
and Latin-speaking races has been reversed, the Roman 
Church must in her turn be moulded by foreign influence. 

In the Pastoral Letter delivered at the close of the 
Triennial General Convention held in Minneapolis a. d. 
1895, the Bishops speaking of the Roman terminology 
saythat'^ it involves themanly independence of a Church 
rooted in the^primitive soil of Christianity, to a Church 
which has no claim upon the allegiance of the English 
speaking race." Those among us who have been con- 
cerned lest ''the Ritualists" would ultimately lead the 
Episcopal Church to forsake its Reformation principles 
and surrender to Rome, will have their fears allaved by 
reading that section of the Pastoral which bears upon 
this subject. It plainly appears from this timely utter- 
ance that the few Romanizers among us cannot reckon 
upon the support of the Bishops, without which the 
Church as a whole can never be compromised. Though 
the great majority of the American Episcopate are pro- 
nounced high Churchmen and some of them have a 
strong predilection for Mediaeval ceremoniahsm, it is 
understood that there was in the House of Bishops 
little or no opposition to this part of their Epistle to 
the Council and Churches, 



LIKE THE EOMAX CATHOLIC. 



347 



But the existence in the Church of those who reso- 
lutely have turned their faces towards Mediaeval doc- 
trine and ritual, is no more to be regretted than the 
presence of such as persistently fix their eyes upon the 
barren and disputatious Puritanism of the Reformation 
period. One has as much right among us as the other, 
for the doctrines and ceremonies which they respectively 
represent, are in the main utterly alien to the primitive 
Catholicity of which the Anghcan Communion is an ex- 
ponent. Our Church claims to be Catholic." It is true 
that the word does not appear in the title, but neither 
does it in the official designation of the English Church 
which, nevertheless, strenuously insists upon her Cath- 
olicity. The word Catholic occurs in our Creeds 
which to us are of much greater importance than our 
name, as must be evident to all from the fact that we 
repeat one or the other of the former at every Service, 
and seldom use the latter except in some abbreviated 
form. As the Church of England is no less Protestant 
than the Episcopal Church in the United States, though 
the term has not been officially adopted as a part of 
her axjpellation. so the American daughter is no less 
Catholic than her English Mother, notwithstanding the 
absence of the word in the epithet by which she is distin- 
guished from the various Christian bodies of this coun- 
try. Xow if the Episcopal Church is really what it 
claims to be, the American branch of the Cathohc 
Church, it must make room for all who accept Christ 
as their Divine Lord and only Saviour, and who engage 
by God's help to live according to the Gospel rule of 
life. But it is too much to expect that all who agree in 
doing this, will be of the same mind about other things. 
We find among us men and women who look at subjects 
from very different points of view. Take for example, 
the Reformation. The Mediae valist warmly contends 



348 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



that in some respects, especially in the matter of ritual 
and ornaments, it went too far, while his Puritan 
brother maintains with equal warmth that it did not 
go far enough. But the one is no more inclined to 
Romanism than the other is to Denomiuationahsm. 
Both in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a 
thousand will remain just where they are, disputing 
with one another, about nonessentials while agreeing 
concerning essentials and communing at the same 
Altar. 

There is, however, some ground for congratulation 
that there are a few of both these classes of extremists 
among us. The positions which they respectively oc- 
cupy, being almost as widely separated as the East is 
from the West, make manifest to all men the Catholicity 
of the Episcopal Church. There is no other body of 
Christians sulRciently comprehensive to include any- 
thing like such radical divergences in either doctrine or 
ceremony. The all-inclusiveness of this Church is in- 
comprehensible alike to Romanists and Denomination- 
alists. They will not tolerate each other, and they can- 
not understand a Church that is spacious enough to 
comprehend within the same fold those who look at 
things from such different points of view. But how 
could the Episcopal Church make good her claim to 
Catholicity unless she had room for both ? The Medise- 
valists and Puritans who are among us, though given 
to disputing with each other about what the rest of us 
regard as nonessentials, a.re nevertheless orthodox and 
exemplary enough touching the essentials of doctrine 
and life. They adhere unswervingly to "the Eaith once 
delivered to the Saints," and persistently endeavor to 
make the precepts and example of Christ their rule and 
pattern of life. These few Episcopalian extremists of the 
right hand and the left are in fact as good Christians as 



LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 



349 



the average among the host of their conservative breth- 
ren or of those in the Roman and Denominational Com- 
munions. We cannot, therefore, deny them a spiritual 
home among us without excluding true Christians, nor 
can we, so long as they remain within canonical and 
reasonable bounds, insist upon conformity, on the part 
of our Medisevalists and Puritans, to the ideas and cer- 
emonials which prevail among us, without becoming 
guilty of persecution. The Episcopal Church cannot, 
therefore, reasonably be objected to upon the ground of 
ritualism. 

Again, it must be remembered that there are also 
many ceremonial similarities between Denominational 
and Roman worship. Consistency would require those 
who object to the Episcopal Church upon the score of 
ceremony, to become Quakers, or even to give up pubhc 
worship altogether. But their tendency confessedly is 
towards an elaborate and ornate worship. 

But, say our objectors, the doctrines of the Episcopal 
Church are such as to convict her of Romanism, and, 
whatever may be said of ceremonials, doctrines are 
essentials. Now, it must also be confessed, there are 
many doctrinal parallels between the Episcopal and 
Roman Churches. The same may, however, be said of 
us as compared with the various Protestant Denomi- 
nations, for much of our teaching is the same as 
theirs. So is it, moreover, with Denomination alists 
and Romanists. There are more particulars in which 
their faith is the same, than will be readily acknowl- 
edged by those who have never been at the pains of 
making a comparison. And in fact if it were not so, 
the Denominations could make no plausible preten- 
sion to orthodoxy. For, though the truth of all that 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH. 



is said concerning the errors and corruption of the 
Eoman Church be admitted, yet no well-informed per- 
son will deny that she holds all the essential doctrines 
of Christianity. Though she has added much to the 
Faith as outlined by the Councils, she has never sub- 
tracted from it. For, not to go into details, she has 
the Bible, the Ancient Creeds, the Ministry, the Sacra- 
ments, and all the Christian Ordinances. Without these, 
as all must agree, there can be no such thing as a Catho' 
he Church of Christ. Therefore, resemblances to Kome 
m these and other essentials of Catholicity, do not consti- 
tute the Episcopal Church Romish but CathoKc. We 
cannot, with justice, be identified with the Roman 
Church because we are partakers with her in the distin- 
guishing features of the Church of the Apostles, and of 
the earliest ages. It is unjust to accuse us of Roman- 
ism unless we consent to and teach the errors which are 
peculiar to the Church of Rome. From these offenses 
we are as innocent as any body of Christians on earth. 

But in condemning and renouncing the Papal addi- 
tions to the Catholic Faith, with the corruptions 
growing out of them, we were carefnl not to follow 
Denominationalists in subtracting from that doctrine 
which has been believed always, everywhere, and by the 
vast majority of Christians. This is the true Catholic 
Faith which the Anglican Communion, of which the 
Episcopal Church is a part, holds " whole and undefiled," 
without the additions of Romanists, orthe subtractions 
of Denominationahsts. And because we are neither plus 
nor minus touching this Faith,Romanists contend that 
we are Denominationalists, and they, that we are 
Romanists, whereas we are neither the one nor the 
other, but true Catholics. 

There can be no doubt that both Romanists and 
Protestants hold to a great deal of truth, but too 



LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 



351 



often it is opposite halves of the same truth; and a 
half truth, as we all know, frequently has the effect of a 
whole error. It will usually be found by the candid 
investigator that the Episcopal Church holds both 
halves of the truth. Take for example her doctrine con- 
cerning the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments of 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Since the Reformation, 
as in the age of the Apostohc Fathers, Anglo-Catho- 
lics connect salvation with the Sacraments and with 
faith and repentance. All that is Scriptural and essen- 
tial in the Roman and Denominational views of the 
efficacy of the Sacraments, we hold. For with the one 
we agree that: "The Sacraments are generally neces- 
sary to salvation and that they work invisibly in us 
and do not only quicken, but also strengthen and con- 
firm our faith in Christ ; " and with the others, we agree 
that the Sacraments ''have a wholesome effect and 
operation in such only as worthily receive the same by a 
death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, by 
repenting themselves truly of their former sins, by hav- 
ing a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ with a 
thankful remembrance of His death, and by being in 
charity with all men." 

Take also our doctrine about confession and absolu- 
tion which is such a bugbear to many Protestants with- 
in as well as without theAnglican Communion, who have 
never taken the pains to inform themselves of the funda- 
mental difference between our teaching and that of the 
Roman Church. Doubtless there are among us those 
who practically hold the Romish dogma, but the view 
which prevails with our Clergy and intelligent Laity, and 
which alone can be justified by our standards, looks 
very much like a compromise between the extremes of 
Romanism and Denominationalism, though, as a mat- 
ter of fact, it is simply that which is taught in the New 



352 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH. 



Testament. This will appear from the following dia- 
logue between a Presbyterian lady and an ex-Methodist 
minister friend of mine who had just made application 
for Holy Orders in the Episcopal Church. 

L. "How strange to think that you left the Metho- 
dists to become an Episcopahan. Do you believe in the 
confessional? " 

Ex. M. "Why, yes, I believe with the Episcopal 
Church that it is our duty and privilege to confess our 
sins to God, and, yet, if any are troubled in their con- 
science and wish advice concerning any besetting sin 
or to make any confession to their pastor so as to 
receive encouragement in the Christian life, I believe 
they should have the privilege of doing so. But of 
course I do not beheve in the Roman confessional, that 
is, an obligatory confession of faults and sins in detail 
as a prerequisite to the reception of the Holy Com- 
munion." 

L. "Well, I am glad to be set right in this, as in the 
future I shall feel somewhat more comfortable about 
the Episcopal Church. No reasonable objection can be 
offered to such a confession, for in one form or another 
it obtains to some degree in all Protestant Denomina- 
tions. But how about Priestly Absolution? Do you 
believe in that?" - 

Ex. M. "Yes, I do; and I think that I can also 
remove your prejudice against the Episcopal Church 
so far as it is due to a misunderstanding on this point. 
I believe that our Heavenly Father is always ready 
to forgive His erring children when they come to Him 
in true penitence confessing their sins. And He is so 
anxious to keep this truth before their minds that He 
has not only caused it to be written in His Word that 
He is ready to forgive iniquity, transgression and sin, 
but so great is His love that He has commissioned 



LIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC. 



353 



His Tuinisters, or Priests, to preach repentance and 
remission of sins to all men in His name, and to pro- 
nounce absolution to all who truly and earnestly repent, 
that the penitent may have every encouragement to 
trust Him." 

L. "I have no objection to that kind of Priestly 
Absolution. It is a very different thing from the teach- 
ing of the Roman Church, that would deny the penitent 
the privilege of trusting alone in the promises of God 
for pardon, and compel him to receive absolution from 
Priests." 

Ex. M. "The fact is, Mrs. , that many Protes- 
tants, in their efforts to get ^way from the errors and 
corruptions of Rome, have gone to the other extreme. 
It is often said that the Episcopal Church is more 
like the Roman Church than any other, and there 
is a sense in which this is true. Those that are least 
like her are the Quakers. Except the Bible they have 
thrown away almost everything; the Sacraments of 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, Confirmation, an Or- 
dained Ministry, the Creed, and so far as possible all 
ceremonies are laid aside, and the inner Light is 
exalted until it is not to be tested or measured either 
by reason or Revelation; while the English Church 
aimed only to throw aside the errors and corruptions 
of Rome, retaining all that was Scriptural, Apostolic, 
primitive and Catholic in worship. The motto of this 
Church is 'Prove all things; hold fast that which is 
good.'" 

But let us see how the assertion that we are like the 
Roman Catholics, can be proven untrue, those who 
make it being themselves the judges. After making it 
they usually proceed to tell their auditors or readers 

C. A.— 23 



354 



OBJECTIOXS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH. 



about ''the ig-noraut, superstitious, degraded, priest- 
ridden condition of Romanists." Now I am not called 
upon to pronounce upon the truth or falsity of this 
severe indictment of Romanism. I simplj- direct atten- 
tion to it in order that the utter inconsistency of those 
who make it, may appear. For if there be any truth in 
what they say concerning the resemblance of Episcopa- 
hanism to Romanism, their description of the members of 
the Roman Church ought to apply to Episcopalians. But 
all the world knows that such a representation of our 
constituency would be simply ridiculous. In fact, those 
who pass this judgment upon Romanism are the same 
who reflect upon the Episcopal Church by representing 
her as made up almost exclusively of the aristocratic 
and dominant elements of the country. ''By their 
fruits ye shall know them." Surely those who assert 
that the Episcopal Church is like the Roman Catholic 
do not regard this precept. In fact they know aud 
admit, and even emphasize the dissimilarity of the 
fruit, and yet declare the identity of the trees. "Do 
men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? " " Con- " 
sistency, thou art a jewel ! "* 

The fact that the Episcopal Church is so non-Roman, 
and has done more than any of the Denominations to 
correct the errors and weaken the po\yer of the Papacy, 
while at the same time she has been wise and conserva- 
tive enough to hold fast to that which is essential to 
Catholicity, as also to many nonessentials which are 
nevertheless good and ancient, will, in proportion as 
prejudice gives place to candor, come to be regarded as 
one of the chief reasons for identification with this 
Church rather than with any of the revolutionary De- 
nominations. In the long run sensible men and women 
may be trusted to perceive the absurd character of 
objections to our Church based upon mere resemblances 



LIKE THE EOMAN CATHOLIC. 



355 



to the Church of Rome. Our unreasonable objectors 
sometimes talk as if one of the chief aims of the Church 
should be to render itself as much unhke the Roman 
Church as possible. We have little use for Rome, but if 
^ve were to adopt that policy, we should be about as 
wise as a family would be to discard their cook-stove 
because their neighboring enemies have one. Such a 
course would starve the xinglican Communion into the 
proportions of a sect, and give Romanism such an op- 
portunity to triumph as she will never have, so long as 
we maintain the advantage of a position which includes 
the essential elements of both Ultramontanism and 
Protestantism without their extravagances and errors. 

The late Bishop of Louisiana expressed the conclusion 
of the whole matter, when, in the course of his reply to 
some^ objector to the Episcopal Church, he observed, 
"After all she is to the various Denominations what the 



■^own clock is to the citizens, a regulator. Though no 
one seems to be satisfied with the time, some aflirming 
that it is too slow, others that it is too fast, and all 
agreeing that it is utterly unreliable, yet in the long run 
the great majorit.y set their watches by it." 

On the general subject of objections to the Episcopal 
Church it may be observed that there is nothing which 
either Romanists or Denominationalists urge against 
us, that is not trifling in comparison with their own 
serious additions to or subtractions from the Faith and 
Government to which the undivided Church of the first 
one thousand years adhered. We confess to many im- 
perfections but they are of a superficial character and 
do not touch the essentials of the Catholic Creed or 
Polity. This was not true of us in Mediaeval times. 
Like the whole of Western Christendom we fell into 
many gross errors and superstitions of which Rome has 
always been the synonym, but of these we rid ourselves 




356 



OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



at the Reformation. Since that memorable event the 
Church of the Enghsh-speaking race has been the most 
Scriptural and Apostolic of all the branches of the 
Catholic Church. 

But again ^\e must heed the precept of Solomon's 
proverb: " Let another man praise thee and not thine 
own mouth: a stranger and not thine own lips." 
Speaking of the English Church, which is the Mother of 
the Anghcan Communion, the great commentator 
among the Methodists says: ''I consider the Church of 
England the purest National Church in the world." 
" We remember," says an eloquent Presbyterian writer, 
'-'the former Services which the Episcopal Church ren- 
dered to the cause of truth, and of the world's redemp- 
tion ; we remember the bright and ever-living lights of 
truth, which her Clergy and her illustrious Laymen have 
in other times enkindled in the darkness of this world's 
history, and which continue to pour their pure and 
steady lustre on the literature, the laws, and the cus- 
toms of the Christian world ; and we trust the day will 
never come, when our own bosoms, or the bosoms of 
Christians in any Denomination, will cease to beat with 
emotions of lofty thanksgiving to the God of grace, 
that He raised up such gifted and holy men to meet the 
corruptions of the Papacy, and to breast the wicked- 
ness of the world." 



The Church for Americans. 



LECTURE VII. 

WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



I. The Episcopal Chuech Apostolic. 

II. The Church of Our Race. 

III. A Valid Ministry. 

IV. Superior Opportunities. 
V. Doctrinal Stability. 

VI. Christian Unity. 



(357) 



AUTHORITIES. 



Brittan, An Apology for Conforming to the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church, Contained in a Series of Letters Addressed to Bishop 
Onderdonk, New York. 
^ Clark, Walk About Zion. 

Olarke, Christian Union and the Protestant Episcopal Church 

i^AussETT, The Claims of the Established Church to Exclusive 
Attachment and Support — Bampton Lectures, 1820. 

Hammond, John Wesley " Being Dead, Yet Speaketh." 

Heygate, Why I Am a Churchman. 

Little, A. W., Eeasons for Being a Churchman. 

Mines, A Presbyterian Looking for the Church. 

O'Neill, Christian Unity. 

Pergival, The Glories of the Episcopal Church. 
Shields, The United Church of the United States. 
Vail, Bp., The Comprehensive Church. 

PAMPHLETS. 

Dudley, Bp., Why I Am a Churchman. 

Hopkins, Wm. C, Reasons Why I Am a Churchman. 

Meade, Bp., Reasons for Loving the Episcopal Church. 

Randall, Bp., Why I Am a Churchman. 

SwoPE, Why I Am an Episcopalian. 

Vincent, Bp., An Address on Church Unity. 

Wesley, Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of Eng- 
land. • 

4f 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

The Good Way, or Why Christians op Every Name May Be- 
come Churchmen, 



(358) 



Why Americans Should Be 
Episcopalians. 



YERY right-thiDking person will readily give his 



consent to the proposition that in the choice of 



a Church, reference should be had to God's will 
and the promotion of one's own salvation and that of 
the world. The object of this lecture is to show that 
by uniting with the Episcopal Church, Americans will 
be most likely to accomplish these important ends. 



THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH APOSTOLIC. 

IF this Church could not historically and doctrinally 
make good the claim to be a part of Christ's One, 
Holy, Cathohc and ApostoHc Church, it would be 
impossible to show^ that Americans are under any Divine 
obligation to identify themselves with her. That the 
Mother Church of England is a true branch of the 
Catholic Church, and that the American Church is iden^ 
tical with the parent stalk in all features essential to 
Catholicity, are propositions which, as we have shown,* 
cannot be questioned without a total disregard of the 
most obvious facts of history. The close and vital con- 
nection between the two Churches is evident from the 
mere fact that they are in the most cordial and complete 
communion. Our Bishops sit with the English and 
colonial Bishops at the Pan-Anghcan Council once in 




I. 



* Lectures IV and V. 



(359) 



360 



WHY AMEKICAXS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



every ten years. The Clergy of all ranks exchange min- 
Lstrations. A communicant in good standing in one 
Church is recognized as such in the other. This inter- 
communion could never have existed and would not be 
maintained, but for the fact that the Church of England 
and the American Episcopal Church are substantially 
the same in all essentials of government, doctrine and 
worship. They are, therefore, manifestly different 
branches of the same vine. And that this vine has its 
root in Christ, through the Apostles, is evident from the 
fact that it can be traced down the ages in unbroken 
continuity. Furthermore, representatives of the Church 
of England occupied undisputed seats in the early Gen- 
eral Councils, and she was universally recognized as a 
true branch of the Apostolic Church of Christ down 
to the time of the Reformation. And if she was this 
until then, she is still the same, for the present Church 
of England is identical with that which was before the 
Reformation," 

Of course the non church member who has made up 
his mind to obey Christ by identifying himself with His 
Kingdom, will be told by the representatives of each of 
the Protestant Denominations that their respective 
bodies are true branches of the Church of Christ. I do 
not feel called upon to go through the long hst of three 
hundred or more for the purpose of investigating their 
claims, nor to pronounce upon them. It is only neces- 
sary that the reader should be put upon some short and 
plam way of coming to the truth by personal investiga- 
tion. You will not be deceived into accepting a Church 
as Apostolic and Catholic which is not such, if you will 
simply trace its history back to the beginning, or 
ascertain whether or not it is or ever has been in com- 
^^^^^o^ ^vith any unquestioned branch of the historic 

* Lecture IV. 



THE CHURCH OF OUR RACE. 



361 



Church. If you are advised to join a Church which can- 
not trace its Unease to the Apostles, or which is not 
and never was recognized by any Church which indis- 
putably has come down from the first centuries as 
being a branch of the Apostolic Church, reject it as 
a human institution that has no Divine claim to your 
allegiance. The American Episcopal Church can stand 
both of these proposed tests, and therefore non church 
members and members of human religious societies can 
make no mistake in uniting wdth her, for so they will 
certainly be doing the will of God by identif3dng them- 
selves with a true branch of His Church. 

II. 

THE CHURCH OF QUE RACE. 

BUT some one may ask, why not join the Koman 
Church and haA^e done with it — why stop midway 
between Sectarianism and Romanism? We an- 
swer because there is absolutely nothing in the w-a^^ of 
Catholicity to be gained, while in other respects much 
would be lost by so doing. 

God, by a wonderful Providence, has made this an 
English-speakiDg Protestant country. It is true that 
the first discoverers and some of the settlers of the 
Western Hemisphere were Italians and Spaniards, but 
the discoveries and conquests made under the flag of 
Spain are of very httle concern to us. As the Bishop of 
low^a has aptly observed : " Our interest as a race and 
as a nation centers in the discovery of the North Ameri- 
can continent on June 24, St. John Baptist Day, 1497, 
by Cabot saihng under the authority of King Henry 
VII. of England. It is on the ground of this priority of 
discovery of the continent that the English Crown and 



AVHY AMEEICAXS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIAXS. 



Commonwealth based their claim to occupy the West. 
It Tvas in consequence of this discovery of the continent 
by Cabot, and in pursuance of this asserted right to 
people the land on which the cross of England's Church 
had been first planted, and to which the'"arms of Eno-. 
land had been affixed by Cabot, that the great histori- 
cal fact is due that we. the people of these United States, 
are neither by discovery, by colonization, by civiliza- 
tion, by race, by institution nor by faith. Spanish or 
Eoman. The Eatin race and the Latin Church were 
granted by Divine Providence the opportunities of 
planting their colonies and attempting the conversion 
of the Aborigines of the Western Hemisphere. God 
willed it that in this AA^stern World there should be wit- 
nessed the struggle between the two races, the two 
civilizations, the two ideas of liberty, the two faiths, 
the one of the English Church and State, and the other 
of the Eatin people and belief. It is this struggle for a 
continent which has determined our origin as a people, 
the nature of our institutions, our civil and Ecclesias- 
tical liberties, our common laws, our forms and features, 
our very speech, our present standing and glory among 
the nations of the earth, our civihzation," our culture 
and our Christianity."' 

Since the memorable commemoration of the four 
hundredth anniversary of the discoveries by Columbus, 
Romanists have been assiduously claiming a large 
share of the credit for the wonderful development of 
this country. The unsophisticated would naturally 
infer from what Eeo XIII. says in a recently published 
encyclical, that Columbus and the Spaniards not 
only discovered the Xorth American Continent, but 
also colonized, civilized, and created the United States. 
The Pope, as one of his caustic newspaper critics points 
out, seems to have forgotten that it was Englishmen 



THE CHUECH OF OUE RACE. 



363 



and their descendants, mostly Protestants, who did all 
this. The truth is that Columbns discovered only some 
far-away islands of the West Indies and afterwards 
made his way to a portion of South America ; but he 
went to his grave believing the land he had seen to be 
a part of Eastern Asia. The attempt of Leo to estab- 
lish himself on a specially friendly footing among us on 
the ground that the Spanish bravoes of South America 
were Koman Catholics, heroes of the faith and Apostles 
of Christian civiHzation, will strike the average Ameri- 
can Protestant as a rather ,heavy Papal joke. Ameri- 
cans are not all that they might be, but they have 
common schools in which they learn a little of the ele- 
mentary history of their country. If, therefore, Roman- 
ists expect the rising generations to accept the dogma 
of infallibility, they must either induce the Pope to 
place our school histories on the "Index of books which 
Catholics are, at the peril of their souls, forbidden to 
read," or to cease writing encyclicals in which reference 
is made to historical subjects. 

Think of it for a moment. This independent, repub- 
lican, Protestant country, the fruit of Spanish enter- 
prise and the Roman Cathohc rehgion! Romanists 
will find it hard to convince us of this. Indeed they 
can never do it, so long as Mexico, and the Central and 
South Americas are remembered. If there is one les- 
son written in bold and unmistakable characters all 
over the face of those countries, it is that Romanism 
has not the power to create great, free, prosperous and 
intelligent, or even moral nations. The Spanish and 
Italian Peninsulas are themselves evidence of this. In 
the words of Motley: "They have had a different his- 
tory from that which records the career of France, 
Prussia, the Dutch Commonwealth, the British Empire 
and the Transatlantic Repubhc." The cause of this 



£5b4 WHY AMEEICAXS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIAXS. 

difference is pointed out by '-Janus" who was certainly 
m a position to know whereof he spoke. There is 
says he, "a profound hatred at the bottom of the soul 
of every genuine Ultramontane, of free institutions and 
the whole constitutional system." He then proceeds 
to make the truth of this statement manifest by the 
most conclusire and varied evidence drawn from the 
history of almost every European country. 

We have not in this connection lost sight of the fact 
that it is claimed, upon what on the surface seems to be 
good ground, that the Romanists of Maryland were the 
first to practice toleration in matters of religion. Their 
descendants of this generation make much of the stat- 
ute which provides that '' no person whatsoever within 
this province [Maryland] professing to beheve in Jesus 
Christ, shall from henceforth be anyways troubled or 
molested for his or her religion, nor in the free exercise 
thereof, nor anyway compelled to the behef or exercise 
of any other religion against his or her consent." This 
with the statement of the historian, Bancroft, to the 
effect that in Lord Baltimore's colony religious liberty 
obtained a home, its only home in"^ the wide world,"' 
formed the text and burden of the addresses at the 
Eoman Catholic Conference at Baltimore in 1889, and 
ever since Eomanists have quoted them upon almost 
every occasion of a conversation with a Protestant. 

Before proceeding to examine this claim in the light 
of the facts in the case, let it be observed that, though 
Maryland may have been the first to secure religious 
toleration by legislation, she was not the only colony 
to practice it. Mr. Bancroft whose comphmentary re- 
marks concerning them Romanists are naturally fond 
of citing, also has something to say about the^oler- 
ance of the Episcopalians of Virginia .• I find no trace 
of persecution in the earliest history of the colony." 



THE CHUECH OF OUE EACE. 



365 



The following extract from Bishop Coleman's History 
of the Church in America will show that no more can be 
said of Maryland . " • Churchmen began very early to set- 
tle in Maryland, so cahed in honor of Queen Henrietta 
Maria, wife of Charles I. They came fi-om Tirginia. 
some time prior to 1634. and made their homes on the 
Isle of Kent, opposite what is now known as the city of 
Annapolis. The Kev. Richard James, who had accom- 
panied Sir G-eorge Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, 
before he became a Roman Catholic. Avas for a Ayhile 
their minister. Not long afterwards, a Chapel was 
erected at St. Mary's Avhere lay Services were held. 
These Church people suffered considerable indignity at 
the hands of the Roman Cathohcs. against whom they 
felt obliged to petition for redress. They styled them- 
selves -Protestant Cathohcs." One complaint was 
that a prominent Roman Catholic had stolen the key of 
their Chapel and removed their books. He was made 
to restore them, and pay a fine of five hundred pounds 
of tobacco, to be applied to the support of the first 
Clergyman who should arrive. Before a great while, 
the proprietary government was oA^erthrown. and 
Protestants, with rehgious toleration. Avere in the 
ascendency.'" 

In regard to the pretension that Americans OAA-e 
their religious and civil hberties to Roman Cathohcs. 
we desire in the interest of truth to make two or three 
observations. To begin, the statute of which we hear 
so much is not quite so liberal as might be supposed 
from the extracts which Romanists so frequently quote. 
The part that they always leave out runs as folloAYs: 
'•Any person or persons Avhatsoever that shall deny 
our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. or shall 
deny the Holy Trinity, the Father. Son. and Holy 
Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the three persons of 



366 



WHY AMEEICAXS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



the Holy Trinitv or the unity of the Godhead, or shall 
use any reproachful words, speeches or lano^uages con- 
cerning the Holy Trinity, or any of the three said Per- 
sons thereof, shall be punished with death and confisca- 
tion or forfeiture of all his or her land and goods to the 
Lord Proprietor and his heirs. " And, in quotino- from 
]\Ir. Bancroft they forget to mention what he says 
about the composition of the legislative bodv which 
passed the statute. He says: The Protestant Gov- 
ernor, Stone, and his Council of six, composed equally 
of Protestants and Catholics, and the representatives 
of the people of Maryland, of whom five were Cathohcs, 
at a general session of the Assemblv, held in April' 
1649, placed upon their statute book an act for the 
religious freedom which by the unbroken usage of fif- 
teen years had become sacred on their soil " In an- 
other place he tells us that - the very great majority of 
the Maryland people were Protestants." 

Thus it looks very much as if the law were a Protes- 
tant act for the toleration of Romanists instead of the 
reverse, as they would have us believe. That this is the 
correct view of the matter is rendered next to certain by 
the fact that in a.d. 1648 William Stone, the Governor 
an ancestor of Bishop Stone, of Marvland, took the 
following oath : - I will not molest, trouble or dis- 
countenance any person in this province professino- to 
believe in Jesus Christ, in particular no Roman Catho- 
lic. ''What does this signify," asks Bishop Coleman, 
" but that the Roman Cathohcs were the tolerated and 
protected?" 

"That Roman Cathohcs," says Dr. McConnell in his 
History of the American Episcopal Church, - should be 
claimed as the champions of religious libertv in the 
seventeenth century, seems sufficientlv grotesque to the 
student of history. The simple truth in the premises is 



THE CHURCH OF OUR RACE. 



367 



this: The Calverts did believe and practice so; the 
Roman Church did neither the one nor the other. The 
settlers of Maryland were too glad to find safety to 
think of persecution. Not that they would have done so 
if they could. They should have, ungrudged, their meed 
of praise ; but they must not have all the praise. It 
must not be forgotten that their new home was given 
them by a Protestant king, with the hearty advice and 
approval of a Protestant council, who in so doing 
waived their own claims in the interest of their mis- 
guided but still loved countrymen. They made the gift 
with their eyes open. English Eomanists were ut- 
terly discredited as citizens. It was not alone nor chiefly 
that their religion was abhorrent. By their own dec- 
laration they took their political orders from an 
enem}^ whom England could not then afford to despise. 
Romanists in England meant servants to the Papacy 
and agents of the King of Spain. Despite of this, Prot- 
testant Englishmen gave them that peaceful home in 
Maryland, which had already been brutally refused 
them by their French co-religionists in Newfoundland. 
The founders were of those few in their day who were 
Catholics rather than Romanists, and Englishmen be- 
fore either. Such were the Calverts, a noble race with 
few contemporkries and fewer descendants. They had 
neither the will nor the powder of intolerance. But they 
laid no claim to toleration as a virtue. They simply 
recognized existing facts. The first offer of persecution 
by the Maryland colony w^ould have brought such a 
storm about them as would have s^vept them into the 
ocean. Churchmen and Quakers, Papists and Puritans, 
would have combined to exterminate the ingrates. 
They were glad to leave England, and there is serious 
reason to believe that they were not altogether sorry 
to be three thousand miles farther away from Rome." 



368 



WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



No, we owe our liberty of coDscience, civilization and 
marvelous material prosperity to our English origin 
and Protestant religion. This being the ease, it seems 
to be a clear indication of God's will that we should be 
Identified with the Church of the Enghsh-speaking race 
Neither the Eoman Church nor any of the Denomina- 
tions can establish a claim to the recognition and allegi- 
ance of Americans upon the ground of being the Church 
of our race. Romanism and Sectarianism T^ ere respec- 
tively SIX hundred and fifteen hundred vears too late in 
coming upon the scene. Whatever the Roman Cathohcs 
m England may have to say about the Church of Eng- 
land, they are unable to deny that their own organiza- 
tion in that country is a new one. It has no succession 
from pre-Reformation times. But the present Bishops 
of the older Sees are historically and canonically the 
successors of those who occupied them before the Refor- 
mation back to the earhest days of Christianity. The 
Archbishop of Canterbury was therefore right when 
sometime ago he styled English Romanism the ''new 
Italian Mission." Romanists at first were much ex- 
asperated at an expression which so precisely defined 
their true status. But one of their own number, the 
Jesuit Father Humphreys, has since boldly avowed : 
"We are a new Mission straight from Rome." On this 
point at least, Anglican and Romans are now 
agreed. An Archimandrite of the Greek Church, resid- 
ing in England, says: ''Roman Catholics, like ourselves 
[Greek Catholics], are Nonconformists in these Isles. 
The Ecclesiastical State Church of England we recognize 
as an important branch of the great Cathohc Church." 

Thus, whether we act, in the choice of a Church, with 
reference to God's will, or regard to the future of our 
race and civilization, we shall choose the Episcopal 
Church rather than any other. 



III. 



A VALID MIXISTRY. 

W'E should be induced to ideutify ourselves with 
the Episcopal Church rather than Avith any 
one of the Protestant Denominations, because 
her ministry is more certainly authoritatively commis- 
sioned. AU agree that the validity of a minister's com- 
mission must be considered. Some of the Denominations 
of modern origin attach almost, if not quite, as much 
importance to this matter as do Episcopalians and 
other representatives of Historic Churches. We are at 
unity in the agreement that no man with impunity can 
take the great honor and assume the awful responsi- 
bilities of representing Christ as a proclaimer of the 
Gospel message and an administrator of the Gospel 
Sacraments, unless he be divinely called thereto. But 
we differ as to what constitutes this call which we agree 
to be essential. A, majority of our Denominational 
brethren think that it consists exclusively in an inward, 
spiritual call. The minority among them hold that to 
this call must be added the laying on of hands by Presby- 
ters or elders. But not eyen the latter of these, though 
inclusive of the former, is held to be a sufficient com- 
mission by any of the branches of the Historic Church 
of v;hich the American Episcopal is one. Romans, 
Greeks, Anglicans and other Catholic and Apostolic 
Communions, comprising together about nine-tenths of 
Christendom, insist that none are lawful ministers of 
the Church of God unless they have received Ordination 
by a Bishop who can trace his spiritual descent and 

C. A.-24 (369) 



370 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



authority to the Apostles by an unbroken succession. 
Nor are those who contend for the sufficiency of Presby- 
terian ordination, able to advance and support any ar- 
gument that is convincing to us, or reassuring to those 
among themselves who have once become famihar with, 
and disturbed by, the facts upon which our convictions 
rest. 

Our Bishops can show their connection with the 
Apostles by at least three independent continuous an- 
cestral lines, namely, that of Jerusalem, Rome and 
Ephesus. And this they can do by almost innumerable 
separate strands. Through St. Augustine, first Bishop 
of Canterbury, St. Patrick, first Archbishop of Armagh, 
and the British, Irish and GalHcan Bishops, they are 
connected with St. John and St. Paul; through Arch- 
bishop Theodore and several of his successors, with St. 
Paul and St. Peter, and through St. David and the 
Welsh Bishops, with St. James and the whole college of 
Apostles. There is not a candid historian in all the 
world who will question the continuity of the English 
- succession. Thus, in our Ordinations, nothing is want- 
ing that either the representatives of modern Denomina- 
tionalism or of the various branches of the ancient 
Catholic and Apostolic Church deem essential. 

In view of the fact that the whole of Christendom 
held to the necessity of Episcopal Ordination during all 
of the fifteen hundred years preceding the Reformation, 
and that nine-tenths of the Christian world still hold it, 
we could never be quite certain about the lawfulness of 
the Orders of our ministry, if their possession depended 
wholly upon the inward call, or upon the laying on of 
hands by the Presbytery, or even upon both of these. 
On the other hand, if we, who are in the great majority, 
be wrong, and they, who are in the small minority, 
right, there will still be no room for misgiving on our 



SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 



371 



part. For if either the inward call or the laying on of 
hands by Presb^^ters, or both of them together, be neces- 
sary, the validity of the Ordination which our ministers 
have received, cannot be doubted. They are obhged to 
answer questions by responses which they could not 
make if they were not fully persuaded of a Divine call to 
preach the everlasting Gospel. It is moreover required 
that at least two Presbyters shall be present to lay on 
hands with the Bishop. If, therefore, a Church be 
chosen with reference to the validity of its ministry, 
there is none which can present a better claim than the 
Episcopal Church. No ministry is more demonstrably 
Scriptural and Apostolic than ours. 



EXT to finding in history an external indication 



of God's will as to our choice of a Church, we 



should have also in view an environment con- 
ducive to our growth in Christ-likeness, and to the up- 
building of ourselves in "the Faith once delivered to the 
Saints." Indeed to be governed by these considerations 
is only another way of obeying Him. For certainly it 
is His will that we should be rooted and grounded in 
the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, and that 
we should grow into the full stature of Christian man- 
hood and womanhood. The main object in life should 
be the shaping of our conduct and the moulding of our 
character by the precepts and example of our Lord 
and Saviour. In this great work we require help in the 
way of constant, efficient teaching. In other words, we 
must be in a good school of Christ. All Churches are, 



IV. 



SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 




372 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



in one of their chief aspects, religious seminaries of 
learning. And all persons who attend upon Divine 
Services are students. 

In respect to institutions for secular education, it is 
well understood that there is a wide difference between 
them, so far as equipment and efficiency are concerned. 
Parents and students recognize this, and, when their 
circumstances will permit, feel it their privilege and duty 
to select the best. Now we hold that there is just as 
much room, if not more, for preference in rehgious 
schools. If in other respects the popular assertion: 
'' One Church is as good as another," be true, it cer- 
tainly is not so concerning their teaching capabilities. 
In this particular some are unquestionably better than 
others. 

The efficiency of a school depends upon four things : 
The proficiency of the teachers, the course of study, 
the text-books and the apparatus for illustrating and 
impressing the truths that are taught. We believe that 
even a cursory examination of the educational system 
which prevails throughout the Anglican Communion, 
will lead all candid Americans, who make choice of a 
Church for the purpose of learning in the school of 
Christ, to choose the Episcopal Church. Her ministers 
or teachers will be found to be w^ell qualified for their 
work. Her course of study covers the whole ground. 
Her text-books comprise not only the Holy Scriptures, 
but also the Book of Common Prayer, which has no 
equal for the light which it throw^s upon the Word of 
God, and for the practical w^ay in which it weaves its 
teachings into our lives. Her ritual, festivals, and fasts 
are so many impressive object lessons, tending at once 
to systematize, emphasize and fix the oral teachings of 
the Services and sermons. See how the most important 
events of the Christian Dispensation and the doctrines 



SUPEEIOK OPPORTUNITIES. 



373 



which they teach pass under review from year to year 
through the whole of our hves. 

" Advent tells us Christ is near, 
Christmas tells us Christ is here ; 
In Epiphany we trace 
All the glory of His Grace. 

"Those three Sundays before Lent 
Will prepare us to repent, 
That in Lent we may begin 
Earnestly to mourn for sin. 

" Holy Week and Easter then 
Tell who died and rose again, 
O that happy Easter day, 
Christ is risen again we say. 

"Yes, and Christ ascended, too, 
To prepare a place for you. 
So we give Him special praise 
After those great forty days. 

"Then He sent the Holy Ghost 
On the Day of Pentecost, 
With us ever to abide, 
Well may we keep Whitsuntide. 

" Last of all we humbly sing 
Glory to our God and King, 
Glory to the One in Three 
On the feast of Trinity." 

But the doctrinal period from Advent to Trinity 
covers only half of the course of sacred teaching pro- 
vided for in the Prayer Book. After that we have six 
months of practical instruction. In the words of the 
Bishop of Ohio : " The Church gives us twenty-five Sun- 
days of the Trinity season, in which the holy teachings 
of our Lord are set forth. The first six months of the 
year are occupied with the succinct narrative of His 
earthly experience; the next six months are filled with 



374 WHY AMEKICAJ^S SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 

the result of His holy instructions. Each Sunday has 
its theme and topic ; and these are the fruits, the out- 
growth of His own example. Faith, forgiveness, charity, 
hope, perseverance, patience, these are some of the 
sacred virtues illumined and set forth — the Christian 
works, the Christian development, the Christian walk — 
accentuated by the glowing words culled from the 
Bible, and grouped in order, to set forth the unmistak- 
able rule of the Christian's daily life and conversation." 

As a distinguished Congregational minister, Dr 
Thomas K. Beecher, says: ''He, who for vears' has 
been a Churchman, and remains ill-grounded in Scrip- 
ture, shows himself to be an unworthy son of a very 
faithful Mother. By the Lessons, Gospels, Epistles, 
Psalms and Collects, appointed for special fast or feast 
days, the events commemorated by that day are 
wrought into the memory of every worshipper. And by 
seasons, longer or shorter, of special rehgious effort 
and observance, this Church satisfies the same want 
which other churches satisfy by weeks of prayer, pro- 
tracted meetings and long revivals. A good school is a 
dull place to any visitor who rushes in to find sensation 
and excitement. He will call it dry, poky, stupid. In 
like manner, many rehgious sensation-makers and sen- 
sation-seekers will promptly vote the Church calendar 
and all its smooth machinery of pious drill, a very dull 
substitute for a regular, rousing revival. But, in the 
long run, the Church that steadily trains and teaches 
will outlive the church that only arouses and startles. 
'If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples 
indeed.'" 

The Eev. Dr. Hitchcock, in a paper read before the 
last Pan-Presbyterian Conference, thus speaks of the 
value of the Christian year and pleads for its restora- 
tion : "I anticipate a revival of the old Christian year. 



SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 375 

Clear back, close up to the Apostolic times, we find at 
least the Passover, Pentecost and Epiphany. Christmas 
appears not long after. And then the calendar was 
crowded with festivals w^hich disgusted our Protestant 
fathers, bringing the whole system into disrepute. As 
betw^een Puritans and Papists, we side, of course, with 
the Puritan, but the older way is better than either. 
Judaism had more than its weekly Sabbath, and Protes- 
tant Christendom needs more, and is steadily taking 
more. Christmas is leading this new procession. Good 
Friday, Easter and Whitsuntide are not far behind. 
These, at least, can do us no harm. They emphasize the 
three grand facts and features of our religion : Incar- 
nation, Atonement, and Regeneration." 

By comparison with the Episcopal Church, the Ro- 
man educational system is unintelligible and supersti- 
tious, and that of the Denominations is wanting in com- 
prehensiveness and thoroughness. Rome gives too much 
time to legends and traditions, and the Denominations 
lay too great stress upon emotions and impulses. The 
former system accepts the decrees of a Pope ; the latter 
follows the idiosyncrasies of enthusiastic leaders. The 
one tends to exaggerated dependence, the other to un- 
bounded individualism. The one is petrifaction, the 
other dissipation. The end of both must be a departure 
farther and farther from the Catholic Faith. I am 
not claiming that the Anghcan or Episcopalian system 
is faultless, but I insist that it is incomparably better 
than either the Roman or Denominational. Besides, it 
stands to reason that the Church which is entwined 
with the entire history of our race, has in herself those 
conservative elements and constructive forces which are 
just what our national fabric requires. The Church's 
superiority as a religious educator has all along at- 
tracted many Americans to her fold, and will continue 



WHY AMEEICAJfS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



to do SO m increasing numbers as long as men and 
women choose their Church relationship with reference 
to the opportunity afforded to them for becomino; 
rooted and grounded in the Faith of the Gospel, and for 
growing up in the full stature of Christian manhood 
and womanhood. 



Again, we claim that in the choice of a Church it is 
a duty to have regard to opportunities of usefulness to 
your neighbor and to the world at large. The reasons 
which would induce you to join the Episcopal Church 
on your own behalf, are of equal force when you have in 
view the good of others. For they, as well as you, have 
need of bmlding up in faith and character. If the 
Church's system is best for you, it will likewise be so 
for your family, for your neighbor, and for your coun- 
trymen generally. This will appear more satisfactorily 
if, after agreeing upon the principal religious needs of 
our time and country, it can be shown that of all the 
Christian bodies, the Episcopal is the best adapted to 
meet them. There will be httle, if any, dissent from the 
affirmation that one of our greatest needs is such a 
presentation of Christianity as will produce the highest 
type of character. 

We have already seen that the educational system 
of the Episcopal Church is at least theoretically the 
best. If our theory be true, it should be capable of 
something approaching to practical demonstration, for 
''By their fruits ye shall know them." But how shall 
we, without comparisons which will be apparently un- 
charitable, demonstrate our theory by the fruit of the 
system ? It will not do for us to be the judge, for so 
our decision would be rejected as partial and biased. 
We must, therefore, produce outside testimony. This is 



SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITIES. 



377 



found in the most satisfactory directions imaginable. 
Upon the whole, those who are placed by the suffrages 
of the people in the most responsible and exalted pubHc 
offices, will be admitted to have been the picked men of 
the country. This has not, of course, always been the 
case, but the exceptions, it must be conceded, do not 
disprove the general rule. If, then, we can make it clear 
that an abnormal proportion of the most illustrious of 
our public servants have been sons of the Episcopal 
Church, our claim that she should be chosen because she 
develops the type of character that the country stands 
most in need of, will have been made good. 

Now, it cannot altogether have escaped the atten- 
tion of any who are in the habit of reading the obitu- 
ary notices of distinguished personages, that many 
of the public men who have died in the course of 
the last ten or fifteen years, have been buried by our 
Clergy and Service. Of course, this is no proof that the 
deceased was a communicant of the Episcopal Church, 
but it does prove that he was more or less closely con- 
nected with her, or, at least, that she was his preference. 
I am convinced, however, from personal investigation, 
that inquiry would, in the majority of cases, establish 
the fact that he was by birth, education, and life-long 
association, a Churchman. 

In September, 1886, I had occasion to make a mem- 
orandum of the men who, in the course of the preceding 
twelve months, had been added to the United States' 
list of honored dead. It was as follows : Thomas A. 
Hendricks, Vice President of the United States; George 
B. McClellan, General, and candidate for the Presidency; 
Wm. H. Yanderbilt, the richest man the world had ever 
known; W. S. Hancock, General, and candidate for 
the Presidency; Horatio Seymour, twice Governor of 
New York, also candidate for the Presidency; J. H. 



WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 

Devereux, Genera], and Kailway President ; David Davis 
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court i 
S. J. Tilden, Governor of New York, and candidate for 
the Presidency; John W. Stevenson, Governor of Ken- 
tucky, and United States Senator; Kufus P. Spauldin^ 
Judge and Scholar. Of these, Tilden was the only one 
whose obsequies were not performed by one of our Cler- 
gymen, and he. Justice Davis and McClellan were the 
only persons among these ten distinguished American 
citizens who were not found, upon investigation, to 
have been actual communicants of the Episcopal Church. 
This showing is doubtless proportionately as true of 
the other years back to Kevolutionary and Colonial 
times. 

Bishop Perry, the learned and tireless Historiog- 
rapher of the American Church, has thrown a great 
deal of light upon the Church relationship of the great 
heroes and statesmen, whose names will ever be house- 
hold words with Americans, as, indeed, not a few of them 
are with all lovers of liberty, and admirers of greatness 
throughout the civilized world. It appears from his 
investigations that, notwithstanding the prejudice 
against the Episcopal Church, and the false charges as 
to her patriotism in Colonial times, which charges have 
been fully answered in another connection,* two-thirds 
of the First Continental Congress held at Philadelphia 
A. D. 1774, were Churchmen. The same proportion 
obtained in the Congress which declared our independ- 
ence. Of the fifty-five actual signers of the Declara- 
tion of Independence, thirty-five were EpiscopaHans ; 
twelve, Congregationalists ; four, Presbyterians ; threei 
Quakers; one was a Baptist, and one a Koman 
Catholic. The Kesolution offered in the Continental 
Congres s of A. d. 1776, declaring the thirteen colonies 

* Lecture V., Part III. 



SUPEEIOK OPPOETUNITIES. 



379 



free and independent, was moved by Kichard Henry Lee, 
of Yirginia, an Episcopalian and a vestryman. The 
Chairman of the Committee of Congress, to which this 
resolution was referred, and by whom the declaration 
was reported after its discussion, and adoption in " com- 
mittee of the whole," was Benjamin Harrison, of Vir- 
ginia, also a vestryman of the Episcopal Church. The 
author of the Declaration itself, Thomas Jefferson, 
of Virginia, although in later life regarded as a sceptic, 
and certainly holding and advocating views quite incon- 
sistent with those accepted by any Christian body, had 
been baptized and was a vestryman of the Church in 
Virginia, and to the last of his life was a regular attend- 
ant at her Services. 

Of the twelve generals appointed by Washington 
early in the war, eight were his fellow Episcopalians. It 
is not too much to claim, indeed it was admitted by 
the Puritan, Adams, that the issue of the struggle for 
independence, and the history of this country, would 
in all probability have been very different but for these 
illustrious Episcopalian patriots. The sons of the Epis- 
copal Church were no less conspicuous and important in 
the preservation of the Union when threatened by the 
Confederacy. Seward, Chase, Stanton, Wells, Blair, 
Dennison, Henry Winter Davis, Scott, Meade, Scofield, 
Curtis, Hancock, Farragut, Porter, Waite, Columbus De- 
lano, and many others of scarcely less distinction, were 
Episcopalians. Nor will it at all weaken our argument, 
so far as it concerns the superiority of the Church's edu- 
cational system, if we call attention to the fact that the 
leaders of the Confederacy were also Episcopalians. 
This is true of Davis, Lee, Toombs, Hill, Johnston, 
Bishop Polk, Longstreet, Stuart and Wade Hampton. 
True, these were not patriots from the standpoint 
of Northerners, but Southerners regarded them as 



380 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



such; and undoubtedly they would have taken first 
rank with our heroes had their environment been the 
same. 

The late Bishop Robertson, of Missouri, a high au- 
thority on American history, in his ''Churchman's 
Answer," says that those, who in this country have borne 
rule and been representative men, have with a curious 
unanimity come forth from those whose piety found its 
best expression in the Prayer Book. Of the Continental 
Congress from Peyton Randolph, the majority of its 
Presidents were Episcopahans. Washington, and two- 
thirds of the Presidents of the United States since his 
day, have been Episcopahans. The same has been true 
of three-fourths of all the Secretaries of State. The 
most eminent and influential of all our Statesmen have 
been the same : Frankhn, Clinton, Jay, Morris, Living- 
stone, Patrick Henry, Hoffman, Schuyler, Randolph, 
Duane, Wirt, Cass, Clay, Benton, Webster. To say 
that the same is true of the commanders of our army 
and navy, would be to catalogue the names of almost 
every one who has attained to eminence. The Chief 
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States 
have, with but two exceptions, been Episcopahans. 

Now, this is a very remarkable showing, especially 
so when we consider that the Episcopal Church 
ranks only seventh or eighth in point of numbers 
among the religious bodies of the country, and that 
both Romanists and Denominationahsts, who together 
must represent nine-tenths of our Christian population, 
have always been deeply prejudiced against us. There 
is, under the circumstances, only one satisfactory way 
of accounting for this, namely, by admitting the truth 
of our claim, that the Episcopal Church, having the best 
system of religious education, is the best adapted to 
produce that type of character of which the country 



DOCTRINAL STABILITY. 



381 



stands most in need. Therefore, if a Church be chosen 
with reference to the opportunities which it affords to 
promote the good of others and of the country, it will 
necessarily be the Episcopal. 



HE English Church, having freed herself from the 



Mediaeval errors, which were common to the 



whole of Western Christendom, occupies now 
the same doctrinal position that she did during the 
first centuries of the Christian era. Since the Eeforma- 
tion she has remained immovably anchored by her in- 
comparable Liturgy, to the Faith once delivered to the 
Saints. This is not the case with Komanism or with 
any of the forms of Denominationalism. 

Eome has been adding to the Faith, the articles of 
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and the 
infallibility of the Pope, to say nothing of the numerous 
decrees of the Council of Trent, the acceptance of which 
is made necessary to salvation and to membership in 
her communion. 

No additions have been made to the faith originally 
held by Denominationalists, but it has been woefully 
diminished. With the possible exception of the high 
German Lutherans, between whom and Episcopalians 
there is, aside from their Presbyterian government and 
doctrine of Consubstantiation, so much in common, 
all the chief Denominations have drifted far away from 
their original moorings. It is impossible for any, but 
the historian, to realize the extent to which Denomina- 
tionalists have been driven about by every wind of doc- 
trine, and how many of them have made shipwreck of 



Y. 



DOCTRINAL STABILITY. 




382 WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 

faith on the shoals of heresy, skepticism and indifference 
But those who have not the leisure or books to 
familiarize themselves with the melancholy history of 
non-Episcopal Protestantism in Germany, France 
England, Holland, the United States, and indeed all 
countries without any exception, where it has taken 
root, will perceive the truth of what we have said as 
soon as their attention is called to the fact, that all the 
divisions which have occurred since the Lutherans 
went out from the Roman Church, and the Independents 
from the Church of England, mark more or less wide 
departures from the doctrine and discipline of the first 
Dissenters. In the nature of things there would have 
been no division without a difference, and no difference 
resulting in a division without a departure from the 
tenets of the earliest sectaries. From the standpoint 
of the first sects, those who went out must have been in 
each case heretics. Schism and heresy are inseparable 
Church history proves that the two invariably go hand 
m hand. There may be error in doctrine without 
separation, but not the latter without the former. This 
being so, the reader will see at once that all the hun- 
dreds of Denominations into which the first two or 
three non-Episcopal bodies have been multiplied, could 
not have arisen without wide divergences from the doc- 
trinal position of their sectarian forefathers. 

Nor is there any reason for believing that the end is 
yet. True the multiplication of sects is no longer en- 
couraged and justified as it was until latelv On the 
contrary, many of the choicest Christians of eVerv name 
are praying, working and hoping for reunion But 
nevertheless we now and then read of the oi'ganization 
of a new Denomination. And, it must be remembered 
that m reality all who are not identified with any form 
of organized Christianity, because they think that they 



DOCTEIXAL STABILITY. 



383 



can be as good Christians outside the Church as in it, 
are a church unto themselves. There can be no doubt 
about it. these one-man churches are increasing' at an 
astounding rate. At the Reformation period every 
man. woman and child in Christendom ^Yas identified 
with some body of Christians, but now untold millions 
are unattached. So nuDierous are the outsiders, espe- 
cially in the United States, that if a man be asked con- 
cerning his religious aflahations, no one is surprised if 
he reply, '' I belong to the big church,'' from Avhich 
we are to understand that he is one of the unaffiliated 
majority. And this church so called certainly has a 
larger constituency and is growing more rapidly than 
any other. Xow the point I make is this — and certainly 
there are none so obtuse as not to be able to see 
it — that every man or woman having no Ecclesiastical 
relationship, whose s^^npathies are with Protestantism, 
is a witness to the departures, and very wide ones at 
that, fi'om the position occupied by the first Denomi- 
nationalists. 

The most cursory examination of the writings of 
Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley will convince any can- 
did mind that even those who now profess to be their 
followers are not so at all. The evidence of this is found 
in the fact that these illustrious Reformers held and 
taught many of the very doctrines which are now said 
to bar their professed spiritual descendants from the 
Episcopal Church. They beheved Episcopacy to be of 
Divine appointment, or. at least, the best form of Eccle- 
siastical government : they held the doctrine of Baptis- 
mal Regeneration : they regarded Confirmation as a 
Scriptural ordinance; and maintained that the Body 
and Blood of Christ are spiritually, though really, re- 
ceived in the Holy Communion. It was upon the urgent 
recommendation of Peter Martyr and Bucer, disciples 



WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



of Luther and Calvin, that the Confession and Absolu- 
tion were introduced into our Daily Morning and Even- 
ing Prayer. 

And not only have Denominationalists departed 
from their founders in respect to those points which 
were originally held in common with the Church of Eng- 
land, but they have, in many cases, renounced the doc- 
trines which differentiated them from the Church. Take, 
for example, the distinctive dogmas of Calvin. It is un- 
questionable that during the last fifty years, Calvinistic 
theology has been generally surrendered by the Bap- 
tists, Congregationalists, and even Presbyterians. And 
yet so thoroughly was Congregationalism once identi- 
fied with Calvinism, that in England, the Independent 
Chapel is still sometimes called, in common parlance, the 
Calvinistic meeting. " If my memory serves me correct] v, 
it was at Chicago, on the floor of the Great Annual Pres- 
byterian Assembly that a delegate, in speaking upon a 
resolution providing for some change in the Confession of 
Faith, electrified the vast assemblage by asserting that 
there was not in all the Assembly a single minister who 
believed in infant damnation. I believe the speaker was 
not contradicted. Be it remembered, it was Calvin- 
ism which "divided the English Church, and, indeed, 
Protestant Christendom, into two hostile camps.'' 
This system is now universally given up. After work- 
ing endless mischief and estrano:ement, it has quietly 
disappeared from the Evangelical Creed. And this 
is to a great degree true of the distinguishing doc- 
trines of Luther and Wesley, and, in fact, of all who 
have originated divisions in the Body of Christ. So 
that, strange as it may appear, those who call them- 
selves by the names of sectaries, are not their followers, 
either in the many doctrines which they held in com- 
mon with the Church, or in a few wherein they differed 



BOCTEIXAL STABILITY. 



385 



from her. The old Faith is still believed by countless 
millions, but the new doctrines Avhich were thought to 
be of so great importance as to lustifv promulgation at 
the expense of Christian unity. haA'e. for the most part, 
been repudiated, or at least neglected, even by the de- 
scendants of those who separated from the Historic 
Church, and banded themselves about their leader 
in order that they might disseminate his pecuhar 
views. 

Xow I respectfully submit to the Denominational 
reader that these and other changes of front constitute a 
sufficient reason for an examination, h not an abandon- 
ment, of your present position. The fact that you are 
not in accord with the doctrinal eccentricities of your 
fathers, while they were at unity Avith us touching" the 
doctrines and customs to which you object in" the 
Mother Church, should at least induce you to listen 
patiently to any explanation that we have to offer. 
"A part of the old Denominational platform has already 
given way under your feet : may it not Avell be suspected 
that the rest is rickety and untenable? May it not be that 
objections still entertained— as, for example, to Apostol- 
ical succession, to Baptismal Regeneration, to Absolu- 
tion, and the like, may turn out to be based on misunder- 
standing and to be propped up by prejudice? You AAih 
no doubt protest that this is impossible, but then your 
forefathers would haA^e protested just as loudly that 
they could never be reconciled to the surplice! ncA^er 
abandon the "FiA-e Points.* never tolerate Liturgical 
forms. To Churchmen patiently looking on and pray- 
ing that Christians may be one, it seems that -Mr. 
Prejudice has fallen doAvn and broken his leg.' and 
they may not only wish Avith Bunyan "that it had been 
his head,- but may see in his unsteadiness ground for 
hoping that that will come next. " 



WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



The Episcopal Church is doctrinallj the most con- 
servative of all bodies of Christians. The fact that she 
is known and spoken of as the vist media, the middle 
way" between the extremes of Komanism and Protes- 
tantism, in itself proves this. Whoever, therefore, in the 
choice of his Church relationship has reference to un- 
chan^eableness of teaching, will identify himself with 
some branch of the Anghcan Communion. 

YI. 

CHRISTIAN UNITY. 

" For hearts that have been long estranged, 
And friends that have grown cold, 
Shall meet again, like parted streams, 
And mingle as of old ?" 

I A ^ ^ convert to Episcopacy, I have always thought 

J^\^ that one of the chief reasons for membership in 
the Anghcan Communion rather than in any 
other, is the fact that she occupies the only ground upon 
which the greatest need of the Christian world. Unity, 
can be satisfied. 

Of late years the subject of Christian Unity has been 
receiving more and more attention, until now it may be 
said to have become the "burning question " of theday. 
Professor Fisher, of Yale College, a Congregational di- 
vine, clearly discerns the rising spirit of Church Unity, 
when he says : " The centrifugal age of Protestantism is 
closed. The centripetal action has begun." The change 
of thought in favor of a united, rather than a di- 
vided, Church cannot have escaped observation by any 
except a few Ecclesiastical Rip Yan Winkles. They 
will wake up some of these fine days to the reahza- 
tion of the fact that the old leaders of thought, 
and the whole of the rising generation are regretting 



CHEISTIAX UNITY. 



387 



and deprecating the evils of divisions and are talking, 
working and praying for unity , and that they are stand- 
ing alone as the champions of sectarianism. 

Christian Unity is a thought which has been in the 
hearts of many of the religious movements of the Nine- 
teenth Century. The Irvingite movement, the Tracta- 
rian and that which has developed into the Denomina- 
tion of Plymouth Brethren, were all largely influenced 
by it. The Evangelical Alliance, the Association for 
promoting the Unity of Christendom, the Bonn Heunion 
Conferences, and the Home Reunion Society, are all of 
them fruits of the desire for unity taking different forms. 
The longing for reunion is now more than ever finding 
expression in publications, in the organization of socie- 
ties, in the official declarations of Churches and in the 
institution of a day of intercession and instruction 
which gives promise of general observance. By com- 
mon consent the day fixed upon is Whitsun-Day. It 
was first appointed in the 3^ear 1894, by the Archbishop 
of Canterbury. In a. d. 3 895, the League of Catholic 
Unity, a society composed of very distinguished min- 
isters representing several of the leading American 
Denominations, joined the Primate of the Anglican 
Communion in the request that on this day, annually, 
prayers be offered, and sermons preached, on behalf of 
organic Christian Union. 

The reasons for fixing upon AYhitsun-Day are obvi- 
ous. It is the birthday of the One, Holy, Catholic and 
Apostolic Church of Christ. It was on Pentecost, fiftj^ 
days after Easter, and ten after the Ascension, when the 
Disciples were all with one accord in one place, that they 
were baptized with the Holy Ghost, and endued with 
that miraculous wisdom and power which enabled them 
to carry out their Lord's plans and directions, by estab- 
lishing and building up His Kingdom, in spite of every 



388 WHY AMEEICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIAN'S. 



opposition, with marvelous rapidity. And after eight 
hundred years of division between the Eastern and 
Western Catholic Churches and three hundred years of 
Denominationalism in the West, it has come to be real- 
ized by Christians of every name that the world can 
never be brought to Christ by a divided Church. ''The 
world," says Dr. Milligan, a Presbyterian, "will never 
be converted by a disunited Church." "In our present 
divided state," writes a veteran missionary. Dr. Alex- 
ander Wilhamson, himself not a Churchman, "we will 
never Christianize China— never ! " "When I asked," 
says Bishop Selwyn, " one of the most remarkable of the 
New Zealand chieftains why he refused to be a Christian, 
he stretched out three fingers, and, pointing to the 
center joint, said, 'I have come to a point from which I 
see three roads branching. This is the Church of Eng- 
land, this the Church of Rome, and this the Wesleyans. 
I am sitting down here doubting which to take.'" 
"And," adds the Bishop, "he sat doubting at that 
' cross road ' until he died." The reahzation of our im- 
potency is pressing upon the hearts and consciences of 
multitudes of every name the question, how can unity be 
restored ? It is my purpose to answer this inquiry in 
part by trying to make it appear that the only practi- 
cable rallying point is on the ground occupied by the 
American Episcopal Church. 



At the consecration of Dr. Lawrence, Bishop of 
Massachusetts, the celebrated Greek Archbishop of the 
Apostolic See of Zante, said truly of us : " You are Prot- 
estant, but you are Catholic. As Protestants, you com- 
prehend all the other Protestant bodies, and, on the 
other hand, you alone can draw the attention of the 
Catholic Churches. Your Church, sister of the other 



CHEISTIAX UXITY. 



389 



Protestant Churches, and sister of the other Catholic 
Churches, is the center to which all the eminent pastors 
of Christians will, in the future, cast their eyes, when, by 
the grace of God, they shall decide to take steps for the 
union of the Christian world into one Church with one 
Pastor.'' The Archbishop is not alone in his opinion. 
Count Joseph De Maistre, a distinguished Roman Cath- 
olic, thought that if ever Christendom is to be reunited, 
the movement must proceed from the Anglican Com- 
munion. He recognized it as the only mediator who 
can lay hands upon both parties; for, as he says, "with 
one hand she touches us [Roman Catholics] and with the 
other the Protestants." 

It will be perfectly manifest to all who are familiar 
with the Declaration of the House of Bishops at Chicago, 
in A.D. 1886, and of the Pan-Anglican Conference of 
Bishops at Lambeth Palace, London, in the year 1888, 
and of the action of the General Convention at Balti- 
more, in A.D. 1892, that any scheme of Christian unity 
which cannot be consummated within the limits of the 
ground now occupied by the American Episcopal Church, 
must fail so far as including the great Anglican Commun- 
ion of more than twenty million adherents is concerned. 

As actual proof that it is possible for Christians of 
every name to unite here in one organic body, let me 
call attention to the notable fact that representatives 
of all doctrinal and governmental views are now, and 
long have been, standing upon this ground. We have 
in this Church some who are, in respect to their views of 
God's mercy, Arminians, Calvinists, and Universalists. 
The Roman, Zwinglian, and Lutheran doctrines of the 
Sacraments have their advocates, or at least would be 
tolerated among us. The same is true of the distinct- 
ive doctrines of the Baptists, Methodists, Adventists. 
Disciples, and others. Concerning the vexed question of 



390 



WHY AMEEICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



Church government, we have High Episcopalians, Pres- 
bj^terians, Congregationalists, andlndifferentists. There 
is a sprinkling of those who advocate and practice an 
extreme Kituahsm, such as could scarcelv be duphcated 
in Roman usage, and others who, in spirit, and so far as 
possible in practice, are severe Puritans. There are sub- 
jectivists and externahsts ; hterahsts and rationalists • 
the votaries of society and the recluse-all these schools 
of doctrine, government, worship and conduct are now 
actually to be found among both the Clergv and Laymen 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 

The comprehensive character of the Church is illus- 
trated by almost all our Confirmation classes. A 
majority of the adult candidates are usuallv persons 
who have grown up under other religious influences. I 
have before me the account of a class of one hundred 
and two candidates confirmed on Good Friday, a.d. 
1894, in St. Andrew s Church, Harlem, New York " There 
were fifty-seven Americans, twenty-one Germans, nine 
Swedes, seven Irish and eight English. The class was 
composed of twenty men, twenty-eight women, twentj^- 
six girls, and twenty-eight boys. Among these, seven 
were married couples. Ten men and eighteen women 
represented the heads of families. Thev were from the 
following Christian bodies: the Church, 52; Eoman 
Catholic, 4; Universalist, 1 ; Lutheran, 9; Methodist, 
14; Baptist, 5; Hebrew, 2; Quaker, 1; Dutch Re- 
formed, 5; Presbyterian, 6; Congregational, 3. 

The idea for which many of the Denominations stand, 
finds recognition in the Episcopal Church. The Presby- 
terian will find, upon investigation, that the authority 
of the Presbytery is duly recognized in the government 
of the Church and the Ordination of elders ; the Congre- 
gationalist, that our parishes are sufficiently independ- 
ent of each other, and that the Laity have' enough to 



CHEISTIAX UNITY. 



391 



vsay concerning Ecclesiastical affairs; the Lutheran, that 
the necessity of faith is taught; the Methodist, that 
the Church in which John Wesley lived and died, lays a 
great deal of stress upon conversion and sanctiflcation ; 
the Baptist, that he can immerse without let or hin- 
drance^ and that though Baptism is commenced in un- 
conscious infancy, it is not completed until Confirma- 
tion is received upon an intelligent confession of faith ; 
the Komanist, that the necessity of unity and Catholic- 
ity is emphasized ; and so on through the whole list. 

It appears, then, that almost any person, no matter 
what his peculiarity of behef, can find room enough in 
this Church, providing only that he sincerely accepts 
the cardinal doctrines of the Catholic Creeds, grammat- 
ically and historically interpreted, and will tolerate the 
eccentricities and whims of others, who, like himself, be- 
lieve that the salvation of the world depends upon some 
little pet idea. If a man can make up his mind to live 
and let live, he can ride into the Episcopal Church on 
almost an\^ hobby, and remain mounted without fear of 
molestation during the remainder of life. Hobbyists 
are never excluded from a trul.y comprehensive and Cath- 
ohc Church such as ours. The}^ often exclude themselves 
because they are too narrow, intolerant and self-willed 
to remain where others, as well as the}^, have liberty. 

But, notwithstanding all the apparently irreconcil- 
able and conflicting elements to be found in the Epis- 
copal Church, there is as much harmony and brotherly 
love among us as in any one of all the bodies of Chris- 
tians. The Eev. Dr. Shields, the Princeton Professor, 
whose writings upon the subject of Church Unity have 
attracted so much attention, bears generous testimony 
to the truth of this. He says: Dilferences which 
have elsewhere issued in sectarianism, are somehow re- 
strained like balanced forces, or blended like discordant 



WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 

harmony. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congre- 
gationalists, in their relation as Denominationahsts, 
are in a chronic state of antagonism and irritation; 
but the very same Christians or others hke them, in 
their relations as Churchmen, holding to the unity of 
the Church, simply lose all their sectarian rancor with- 
out losing their distinctive beliefs. Denominational 
variety is thus visibly made consistent with Church 
Unity." 

This remarkable unity, in spite of the widest divers- 
ity, is accounted for by the fact, that we agree in rec- 
ognizing the inherited Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as 
containing the essentials of doctrine, from which there 
can be no departure, and in allowing almost unbounded 
liberty of opinion, respecting all matters, that are not 
touched upon in these summaries of the ''Faith once 
dehvered to the Saints." It is also largely due, as 
Professor Shields points out, to the fact that we have 
the Historic Episcopate as a center of unity. ''It is 
not," says he, "a matter of speculation. We have be- 
fore us all the while, the object lesson of a unifying 
Episcopate." 

There is, therefore, nothing which partakes of the 
character of mere enthusiasm and experiment, much 
less of bigotry, in our proposition that all Christians 
should unite upon the ground now occupied by the 
Protestant Episcopal Church. For, so far as this 
Church is concerned, unity is impossible upon any other 
ground, and, as for almost all other Christian bodies, it 
is possible here. 



But in showing that the Episcopal Church is des^ 
tined to become the all-embracing form of organized 
Christianity in the United States, we may call attention 



CHEISTIAN Ui^ITY. 



393 



to the significant fact that she is already dominant in 
our largest city, and is rapidly becoming so in all great 
centers of population. In New York, the increase of 
population in five years has been 15.38 per cent. The 
increase of Church membership, all Churches except the 
Episcopal, has been only 3.12 per cent., while including 
the Episcopal, it has been 13.03 per cent. But the 
increase of the Episcopal alone was 31.74 per cent., 
double that of the population, and nearly treble that of 
all the Protestant Denominations put together. 

There can be no question that in the leading city of 
the country, the Church is the most pow^erful of the re- 
ligious forces. Leaving out of the list the Christian 
bodies which represent current foreign immigration, and 
her proportionate lead is even greater than it appears 
from the following full list of houses of worship which 
the various Denominations had respectively in the years 
1871 and 1894: 





Number of 


Number of 




Churches 


Churches 




IN 1871. 


IN 1894. 




74 


103 


Presbyterian 


51 


70 




50 


65 


Roman Catholic ' 


40 


84 


Baptist 


30 


50 




25 






46 




20 


27 




15 


21 


Congregational 


5 


7 


Universalist 


5 


3 




4 


3 




3 


2 




18 


41 


Totals 


340 


522 



Now^ it wdll be admitted by the observing and reflect- 
ing that pur great cities exercise a moulding influence 



WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



over the inhabitants of smaller towns, villages and the 
country. If, therefore, the Protestant Episcopal type of 
religion prevails at the close of the nineteenth century 
in New York, it is probable that by the close of the twen- 
tieth century it will do so in all the other greater cities 
—it does so now in Philadelphia— and that it will be the 
dominant religion of the country in the course of time. 

The history of the spread of Christianity plainly 
teaches that no body of Christians which is losing 
ground or falling behind in our great cities, however 
prosperous it may be in smaller centers of population 
and in the country, can possibly become the Church of 
the Keconcilation to American Christians. In the 
Koman Empire the inhabitants of the smaller towns, 
villages and country were the last to give up their 
heathen religion and to embrace Christianity. Long 
after the Christian rehgion had been dominant in 
Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch and Constanti- 
nople, the -'pagans" or, to translate the word, the ''in- 
habitants of the country," continued in heathenism. 
But in time Christianity became the religion of the 
whole Empire. Hence we argue that, as the Protestant 
Episcopal type of religion is now dominant in our 
greater cities, when sufficient time has elapsed for his- 
tory to repeat itself, this type will also prevail through- 
out the United States. 



Again, a strong argument in support of the claim 
that our Savior's prophecy, "They shall become one' 
flock and one Shepherd," will be realized in the Anglican 
Communion, may be founded upon the factthatthe Eng- 
lish civilization seems destined to become universal, and 
so the unifier of all the nations of the earth. The marvel- 
ous spread of the Enghsh language would seem abund- 



CHRISTIAN UKITY. 



395 



aotly to justify this assertion, extravagant as it may 
appear at first sight. It is stated that within the 
present century the number of those who spoke our 
tongue at its beginning has been multiplied six times — 
from 21,000,000 in the year 1800 to 126,000,000 in 
A. D. 1894. French, in the same period, has not quite 
doubled ; German, a little more than doubled ; Russia 
keeps close pace with Germany, having risen froin 
30,000,000 to 70,000,000. Of the 162,000,000 people 
who are estimated to have been using the seven leading 
European languages in A. d. 1800, the English speakers 
were less than 13 per cent., while the Spanish were 16, 
the Germans, 18.4, the Russian^, 18.9 and French, 19.6. 
This aggregate population has now grown to 400,- 
000,000 of which the English-speaking people num- 
ber 126,000,000. From 13 per cent., we have ad- 
vanced to 31 per cent. The French speech is now used 
by 50,000,000 people; the German by about 70,000,- 
000; the Spanish by 40,000,000; the Russian by 70,- 
000,000; the Italian by about 30,000,000; and the 
Portuguese by about 13,000,000. Thus the English 
language is now used by nearly twice as many people 
as any of the others. 

In his history of the Enghsh People, Mr. Green fore- 
casts the future of the race in these terms : Before half 
a century is over, it will change the face of the world. 
^ As two hundred millions of Englishmen fill the valley of 
the Mississippi, as fifty millions assert their lordship 
over Australia, their vast power will tell through Britain 
on the old world of Europe, whose nations will have 
shrunk into insignificance before it. What the issues of 
such a wide-world change may be, not even the wildest 
day-dreamer will dare to dream. But one issue is inevi- 
table. In the centuries that lie before us, the primacy 
of the world will be with the English people. English 



396 



WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



institutions, English speech, Enghsh thoughts will be- 
come the main features of the political, the social the 
mtellectual life of mankind." 

Now we contend that the Anglican Communion will 
always follow and keep up with the English language, 
that in proportion as our civihzation unifies the poht- 
ical world, our Church will reunite divided Christendom 
and Christianize heathenism. If it be asked why she, 
rather than one of the English-speaking Denominations' 
may aspire to become the Church of the Eeconcihation,' 
the ready answer is found in the simple fact that she is 
the Historic, the Catholic, the Mother Church of our 
race. For, other things being equal, it is in the nature 
of things that her children and grand-children should 
gather around her rather than about any one of them- 
selves. And how much more likely is this to be the case 
when, as in this instance, the Mother has so many and 
great advantages, as is evident from the fact that many 
of her distinctive features, after having been long re- 
jected by her wayward children, are now being com- 
mended and adopted. The Church that has been 
entwmed about the very heart of the Anglo-Saxon 
nation and that of all its colonies through their entire 
history, is not hkely to be abandoned at this late date 
by such a conservative race as we are, for some one of 
the many organizations of the last three hundred years, 
none of which have taken any hold upon our people as a 
whole. The Anglican Communion always has been, is 
now, and ever will be, the dominant religious influence 
with English-speaking people, and there is as much 
reason for believing that in the course of time it will be- 
come all-embracing as for the belief that ultimately ours 
will be the universal language. Certainly our civiliza- 
tion cannot assume world-wide proportions without the 
Church doing the same, for she is its foundation. 



CHEISTIAX UXITY. 



397 



In a day when the divisions of Western Christendom 
are almost universally deplored, and when those whose 
ancestors went out from the Anglican Communion, rep- 
resent the " Historic Episcopate " to be almost the only 
thing which prevents them from returning to the fold 
of the Mother Church, the fact that the great non-Epis- 
copal Keformers and their co-laborers were Presbyte- 
rians from necessity, not preference, should be more 
generally known than it is. "Our Churches," writes a 
distinguished Protestant teacher, "did not embrace 
the Presbyterian discipline from dislike of Episcopacy, 
or because it seemed to be opposed to the Gospel, or to 
be less profitable to the Church, or less suitable to 
the conditioii of the Lord's true fold, but because 
they were compelled by necessity." Luther intended 
simply a temporary departure from the Episcopal 
regime. Calvin made application to the Enghsh Epis- 
copate, and John AVesley to a Greek Bishop for Conse- 
cration. 

It is not improbable that some arrangement would 
have been made for the granting of Calvin's request, 
had his letter not fallen into the hands of unprincipled 
sympathizers with Rome, who forged an insulting re- 
jection of it. Says Archbishop Abbot: -'Perusing some 
papers of our predecessor, Matthew Parker, Ave find that 
John Calvin and others, of the Protestant Churches 
of Germany, and elsewhere, would hare had Epis- 
copacy, if permitted, but could not upon several 
accounts; partly, fearing the other princes of the Ro- 
man Catholic faith would have joined with the Emperor 
and the rest of the Popish Bishops, to have depressed 
the same; partly, being newly reformed, and not set- 
tled, they had not sufficient wealth to support Episco- 
pacy, by reason of their daily persecutions. Another, 
and a main cause was, they would not have any Popish 



dy« WHY AMERICANS SHOULD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 

hands laid over their Clergy. And, whereas John Calvin 
had sent a letter in King Edward VI.'s reign, to have 
conferred with the Clergy of England about somethings 
to this effect, two Bishops, namely, Gardiner and Bonner, 
intercepted the same, whereby Mr. Calvin's offerture 
perished ; and he received an answer, as if it had been 
from the reformed divines of those times, wherein they 
checked him, and slighted his proposals. From which 
time John Calvin and the Church of England were at 
variance on several points, which otherwise, through 
God 's mercy, had been qualified, if those papers of his 
proposals had been discovered unto the Queen's Majesty 
during John Calvin's life. But being not discovered 
mitn or about the sixth year other Majesty's reign, her 
Majesty much lamented they were not found sooner; 
which she expressed before her Council at the same time,' 
in the presence of her great friends. Sir Henrv Sidney 
and Sir William Cecil." 

It is also worthy of note that our Church in America 
to-day stands with the authority of the Presbyterate 
fully recognized, precisely as the English Presbyterians 
of A. D. 1660 asked that it might be in the Church of Eng- 
land, when they professed that they would be content 
with the Anghcan Episcopate, provided such place and 
such authority were secured to the body of the Pres- 
byterate. "In their celebrated manifesto favoring a 
'moderate Episcopacy,' they acknowledge that this 
was - agreeable to the Scriptures and the primitive gov- 
ernment, and likeliest to be the way of a more univer- 
sal concord, if ever the Churches on earth arrive at such 
a blessing.' Their idea of a 'moderate Episcopacy' 
was precisely that which has been restored in America, 
namely. Episcopacy 'conjunct with synodical govern- 
ment;' the Presbytery and the Laity being admitted 
to synods." 



CHRISTIAN UNITY. 



399 



It is impossible in the light of the constant and uni- 
formly consistent example and utterances of the A¥es- 
leys, to believe they ever intended their followers to 
separate from the Church of England, or that John Wes- 
ley intended to be understood as conveying Episcopal 
authority upon Dr. Coke, when, by imposition of hands, 
he set this Priest of the English Church apart for the 
superin tendency of the Methodist Societies in America. 
The Wesley brothers lived and died in the Communion 
and Priesthood of the Church. That Charles Wesley 
did this, has never been questioned, and that John 
Wesley did so, is evident from his own reiterated state- 
ment and deathbed prajw. In answer to his followers 
who wanted to go out, and to his enemies w^ho accused 
him of meditating an exodus, he always replied to the 
day of his death : "I never had any design of separat- 
ing from the Church. I have now no such design, and I 
declare once more, that I live and die a member of the 
Church of England, and that none who regard my judg- 
ment or advice will ever separate from it." And when 
his last hour came, he prayed: "We thank Thee, 
Lord, for these and all Thy mercies. Bless the Church 
and King, And grant us truth and peace, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord forever and ever." We also 
have the conclusive evidence afforded by the circular 
letter addressed by the Methodist Conference to the 
Societies, in w^hich they say: "Our venerable father, 
who is gone to his great reward, lived and died a mem- 
ber and a friend of the Church of England. His attach- 
ment to it was so strong and so unshaken, that nothing 
but irresistible necessity induced him to deviate from 
it in any degree." 

Methodists claim that Mr. Wesley intended to conse- 
crate Dr. Coke, his brother in the Priesthood, a Bishop, 
when he blessed him upon his departure to assume the 



400 WHY AMEEICANS SHOtJLD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 

direction of the American societies. But it is difficult 
to reconcile this view with his words as quoted above 
or with his rebuke of Mr. Asbury, when he began to as- 
sume the title and exercise the functions of a Bishop 
upon the ground of his ordination bv Dr. Coke How 
can you," said Mr. Wesley, -how dare you suffer vour- 
self to be called a Bishop? I shudder, I start at the 
very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool a 
rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shkll 
never, by my consent, call me Bishop. For my sake 
for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this' 
Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the 
Methodists know their calling better." 

Even if it be granted that Wesley did intend to in- 
vest Coke with the Episcopal character, it must be 
admitted that he was the only person ordained to the 
Episcopate by him, and that Francis Asbury was the 
only so-called Bishop ordained by Coke. Methodist 
Bishops must then trace their authority to Asbury 
whose Episcopacy was thus earnestly repudiated by the 
founder of Methodism, and with it, of course, their own 
pretensions to any office higher than the general super- 
mtendency which Asbury was permitted to retain. Nor 
must we lose sight of the significant fact that, according 
to esley's letter of instruction. Coke was sent to Amer- 
ica to minister to persons 'Svho adhered to the doctrine 
and disciphne of the Church of England." He was not 
commissioned to found the Methodist Episcopal (Church. 
It is said that there is not at this time a single descend- 
ant of the Wesleys in any of the Methodist Communions 
Three grandsons of Charles Wesley have been Clergymen 
of the Church of England. In this thev are following 
the precept and example of their distinguished ancestor 
From this it will appear thatthere isnot a Lutheran' 
or a Presbyterian, or a Methodist in the United States 



CHEISTIAN IJXITT. 



401 



who would not, if he followed the express preference of 
the man whom he venerates as the founder and pillar 
of his Denomination, find his way into the Episcopal 
Church. The same also might be said of Congregation- 
alists, for Brown who led them out, in his old age, 
returned to the fold and ministry of the Church. " The 
Baptist, Congregational and Methodist Churches could 
construct no platform of Church Unity more Catholic, 
practical and helpful than the Quadrilateral ; while the 
Lutheran, Reformed and Presbyterian Churches could 
adopt no other without largely ignoring their own 
standards and history." 



In conclusion, let me answer a practical question 
which every one, who recognizes the evils of a divided 
Church and desires to do the will of Christ, should ask 
himself : What can I do to bring about the visible 
organic unity among Christians for which our blessed 
Lord prayed, and upon which He makes the evangeliza- 
tion and salvation of the world to depend ? " 

As you no doubt have anticipated, my answer to 
this, the greatest question which a Christian of these 
days can ask himself, so far as it relates to the sons and 
daughters of the Protestant Episcopal Church, is: Pray 
and work for the return of your brothers and sisters of 
every Denomination to the Mother Church of the Eng- 
lish-speaking race. And to those who are Hving in 
separation from her, let me say: Study the claims of the 
Mother Church upon you, and when you have become 
convinced that they are superior to those of the Denom- 
ination to which you belong, return without delay to 
your ancestral home where a warm welcome awaits you. 
Then others will follow your example, and others theirs, 
and so on in increasing numbers, according to the law 

C. A.— 26 



402 



WHY AMEEICAXS SHOTLD BE EPISCOPALIANS. 



of natural progression, until the war will be pre- 
pared for the return of whole families ^of the Mother 
Ghureh s wayward children. It will be hard for vou to 
take the step. In many eases it will require much cour- 
age and great sacrifices ; but-I speak fi^om personal ex 
perience, and there are many others, some of whom are 
to be found in almost every community, who will bear 
witness to the same effect-when once vou are within the 
embrace of the dear Mother Church, there will be no re- 
gret, but your satisfaction and happiness will find ex- 
pression in the beautiful poem WTitten bv Bishop Coxe 
after he had taken the step which I am^ advisino. vou 
to take : " 

"I love the Church, the Holy Church, 

The Saviour's spotless bride, 
And 0, I love her palaces. 

Through all the world so wide. 
''Unbroken is her hneage, 

Her warrants clear as when 
Thou, Saviour, didst go up on high, 
And give good gifts to men. 

"Here clothed in innocence they stand, 
Thine Holy Orders three. 
To rule and feed, Thy flock, Christ, 
And ever watch for Thee. 

"I love the Church, the Holy Church, 
That o'er our life presides. 
The birth, the bridal and the grave, 
And many an hour besides. 
'■ Be mine through life to live in her, 
And when the Lord shall call, 
To die in her, the Spouse of Christ, 
The Mother of us all." 



The Church for Americans. 



Appendices and Supplementary Articles. 

I. LiGHTFOOT : Apostolic Oeigin of the Three- 
fold Ministry. 

II. Bishop Griswold on the Presbyterian Hy- 
pothesis. 

III. Washington a Communicant. 

IV. Franklin an Episcopalian. 
V, Jefferson an Episcopalian. 

VI. The Constitution of the United States and 
THE Faith of Its Framers. 

VII. Growth of the Episcopal Church. 
VIII. Non-Episcopalian Encomiums on the Prayer 
Book. 

IX. John Wesley Always an Episcopalian. 
X. Pope Pius IV. and the English Prayer Book. 
XI. Greek Catholics and Anglican Orders. 
XII. John Wesley on the Ministerial Office. 

XIII. The Nine Hundred and Ninety-Nine Years' 
Lease. 

XIV. Continuity of the English Church Proved 
BY THE Uninterrupted Succession of Her Bishops. 

(403) 



404 



APPENDICES. 



XV. The English Church Did Not Secede from 

Rome. 

XVI. Harriet Beecher Stowe. 
XVII. Henry Clay. 
XVIII. Reformed Episcopalians. 

XIX. Extempore Prayer and Experience Meetings. 
XX. Vestments ^ — A Layman on. 
XXI. Dancing, Card Playing and Theatre Going. 
XXII. The Episcopal Church the Church of the 
Poor. 

XXIII. Fermented Communion Wine, Objection to, 
Considered. 

XXIV. The Declaration of Independence and the 
Faith of Its Signers. 

XXV. Perpetuity : An Additional Reason for Being 
AN Episcopalian. 

XXVL New York: Statistics of the Chief Bodies 
op Protestant Christians in 1895. 

XXVII. Statistics of English Rearing Bodies of 
Christians in the World. 
XXVIII. Catholic. 



I. 



LIGHTFOOT: APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE 
THREEFOLD MINISTRY. 

Lecture III; Page 184. 

" I ^HE following self-explanatory correspondence, which ap- 
peared in the " Church Guardian," of Montreal, and was 
republished in the "Living Church," of Chicago, will be of 
interest to many : ' 

LocKEPOET, N. S., March 1, 1887. 
To THE Editor of the ' Chukch Guakdian : ' 

Sir : Having been shown a speech by a Presbyterian 
minister, in which he claimed that Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of 
Durham, acknowledged that Presbyterian order was the rule 
in Apostolic times, I wrote his Lordship, and received from 
his chaplain the following reply, which may be of much service 
in refuting the views imputed to the great orientalist, histo- 
rian and commentator. S. G. 

AuKLAND Castle. 

The Rev. S. Gibbons. 

Sir : The Bishop of Durham finds to his great regret that, 
owing to the great pressure of work by which he is sur- 
rounded, your letter respecting the Christian ministry has 
remained unanswered. 

The Bishop desires me to say that so far from establish- 
ing as the fact that ' Presbyterianism was the first form of 
Church government,' his essay goes to prove that Deacons 
existed before Priests, and yet no one would contend that 
Church government by Deacons was the 'first form,' hence the 
writer's argument, based on priority of time, proves too much 
for his taste. It is, however, generally allowed that the 
names of Presbuteros and Episcopos in the New Testament 
are sometimes synonymous, Acts, 20 : 17 ; I Peter, 5 : 1, 2 ; I 
Tim., 3 : 1-13, where the Apostle passes at once to Deacons 
from Episcopos, Titus, 1 : 5, 7 ; but even in the times covered 

(405) 



406 



APPEXDICES, 



by the ^ew Testament writings, we see in the lifetime of the 
Apostles individuals sincded out to preside over certain 
Churches and to ^^x.r,-e powers of ordination, o-overnment 
and presidency, a-^ TiTu^ at Crete. James at Jerusalem. Tim- 
othy at Ephesu.: and thouo-h the evidence is necessarily 
hmited. we rind in Asia Minor Episcopacy pure and simple, 
appointed and established, no doul;)t bv the influence of St 
John at the date of the Iffnatian Epistles, and its institution 
can be plainly traced as far back as the closino- years of the 
nrst century. ' 

_ AVe see the threefold ministry traced to Apostolic direc- 
tion and this bears out the truth of our Praver Bool^ Preface 
Ordinal, and is the belief of the AnoJican community 
1 reo-ret that m a brief letter so much must be passed 
over and so inadequate an account be odven of so interestino- 
and absorbmo^ a subject. " 

_But enough has been said to prove that the Presby- 
terian s deduction from the Bishop of Durham's article is not 
justified by the facts. Yours faithfullv 

j -.-..-o- J- Haemee. Chaplain. 

Jaxuaey 20. 1887. ^ 



II. 

BISHOP GEISWOLD OX THE PIlESBYTEBIiy 
HYPOTHESIS. 

Lecture III; Fjge 184. 

•••'JT is often affirmed but has never been proved, that the 
ministers of Christ were, at first, all of one oTade. 
and that the Bishops usurped the authority, which, it Is ac- 
knowledged, they, in the early ao-es. possessed. But this is 
absurd, and altogether incredible^ It is absurd to suppose 
that those, now called Bishops, made such a change. Because, 
if the government of the Church was left by the Apostles in' 
the hands of Presbyters, they, the Presbvters.' must have made 
the change. On this supposition, there were no Bishops to 
abuse power: the Presbyters usurped authority, and made the 
change. If a thing so strange and so wicked was done at all. 



THE PEESBYTEKIAX HYPOTHESIS. 



407 



it was done by Presbyterians or Congregationalists. Those 
who advance this position virtually say, that within one or two 
centuries at most, after the government was put into their 
hands, thej all, in every country, agreed in changing it to what 
Christ never intended. They certainly do very little honor to 
that mode of Church government, by supposing it so defective 
and inefficient as to be so soon relinquished. 

" It must, too, be difficult for us to believe, that, in the first 
three centuries, men should have been ambitious of the Episco- 
pate, when its worldly advantages were so small, and its sacri- 
fices and perils so great. Martyrdom in those ages might 
almost be considered as annexed to a bishopric. The general 
practice of the persecutor was to smite the shepherd, that the 
sheep might be scattered; the Bishop was usually the first led 
to tortures and to death. How can we, in reason, believe that 
under such circumstances, so great a change should be made 
in the government of the Church ? that the holy martyrs of 
that time, which truly ' tried men's souls,' should either attempt 
or desire to alter the institutions of Christ ? And had auch a 
change by some Churches been attempted, it seems morally 
impossible that it should have become general. And yet we 
are sure from all ancient history, that Episcopacy was general 
from a very early period down to the Reformation. During 
the first fifteen centuries, it is not easy to name any one part of 
Christianity, in which all Christians were more generally 
united than in what we now call Episcopacy. Were we to 
admit that so great and material a change was made in our 
religion, without being recorded in history, we might well fear 
that other great changes were also made; that even the Scrip- 
tures were altered. If all the Churches would agree in cor- 
rupting one part, why not in corrupting another part? In any 
part of the first three centurieTs, it would have been as difficult 
to produce such a change, as it would be in our day. And to 
me, certainly such a change, so silent, so peaceable, and so 
general, without opposition, or any historical record, is a moral 



408 



APPEXDICES. 



impossibility. Should there be any here who think differently 
on thas point, they will not, I trust, regret having heard what 
we think on a subject which so much concerns us all. Xothino- 
will tend more to unite Christians in love, than candidly head- 
ing from each other the hope that is in them. And, indeed, if 
differing Denominations of Christians are ever brought to strive 
together for the faith of the Gospel, it will be by their first 
uniting m the government, whatever they may decide it to 
be, which God has set in the Church."' 



III. 

WASmXGTON A COMMUNICANT. 
Lectuee Y; Page 289. 

JT is not disputed that Washington was an adherent of the 
Episcopal Church and a regular and devout attendant upon 
her Services, but the statement that he was also a Communi- 
cant is sometimes questioned. In an interesting contribution 
to the " Living Church " of June 29, 1895, the Rev. Wm. E. 
Hooker settles this question. He says : " I have in my library 
this volume, entitled- 'Memoirs of Washington/ by his 
adopted son, George Washington Parke Custis.' There is as 
well a memoir of the author^ by his daughter, with notes by 
Benson J. Lossing. The work was pubHshed in 1859. On 
page 173, the writer speaks of Washington as a strict observer 
of the Lord's Day, and of his habit of^ attending- public wor- 
ship ; of his respect for the Clergy ; of his friendship for 
Bishop White and Archbishop Carroll of the Roman See of 
Baltimore. Then in a foot note, on the same page, is this state- 
ment : ' Washington was a member infu/l Commiouo?i of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church and was for many years before 
and after the Revolution, a vestryman in Truro parish, whose 
Church, Pohick, built under his supervision, is yet standing.' " 
"I have before me," he continues, "the original drawing of 



WASHmGTON A COMMUNICANT. 



409 



the ground plan and elevation of that Church, made by Wash- 
ington himself. He was also a Vestryman, previous to the 
Revolution, in Fairfax parish, whose Church, wherein he 
frequently worshipped, is yet standing in the city of Alex- 
andria. While President of the United States and residing 
in New York, he attended St. Paul's Church ; in Philadelphia, 
Christ Church." " A member in full Communion " is merely 
another way of designating a Communicant. And this state- 
ment is unqualifiedly made by one of Washington's own 
family, his son by adoption. Mr. Custis, himself a Church- 
man, died in 1857. 

To this weighty testimony cited by Mr. Hooker, may be 
added a passage almost equally conclusive to which the late 
learned Dr. Bolles calls attention in his " W^ashington, A 
Centennial Discourse : " " In the twelfth volume of the writ- 
ings of Washington, Sparks has a remarkable note as follows : 
' I shall here insert a letter written me by a lady who lived 
twenty years ago in Washington's family, and who was his 
adopted daughter and the granddaughter of Mrs. Washington. 
The writer of this letter married Lawrence Lewis, the nephew 
of Washington.' It is dated Woodlawn, February 26, 1833. 
It is too long for reproduction in these notes. I give some 
extracts from it, namely : ' My mother resided two years at 
Mount Vernon after her marriage. I have heard her say that 
General Washington always received the Sacrament with my 
grandmother before the Revolution.' " 

The Honorable Mr. Sewall of New Hampshire said : " To 
crown all his virtues he had the deepest sense of religion. He 
was a constant attendant on public worship and a communicant 
at the Lord's Table. I shall never forget the impression 
made by seeing this leader of our hosts bending in this house 
of prayer in humble adoration of the God of armies and the 
Author of our salvation." 

General Porterfield, his aid, testifies : " General Washing- 
ton was a pious man, a member of the Episcopal Church. I 



410 



APPEXDICES. 



saw him myself on his knees receive the Lord's Supper at 
Philadelphia. As brigade inspector I often waited on Wash- 
mgton in the army, and going once, without warning, to his 
headquarters. I found him on his knees at his morning devo- 
tions. I was often in his company under very exciting cir- 
cumstances, and never heard him swear or profane the name 
of God in any way." 

Major Popham. a Revolutionary officer much with Wash- 
ington, testifies that, -he attended the same Church with 
Washington during his Presidency, that the President often 
communed, and that he had the privilege of kneeling and 
communing with him.'' 

Mr. Edward Everett in his famous oration on the Life and 
Character of Washington." says: - Washington was brought 
up m the Episcopal Communion, and was a member of the 
vestry of two Churches. He was at all times a regular attend- 
ant upon public worship, and an occasional partaker of the 
Communion." 

The Honorable R. C. Winthrop. who was one of the orators 
at the laying of the corner stone of Washington's monument, 
and also at its dedication, gives the follo'wing testimony : 
" True to his friends, true to his country and to himself ; fear- 
ing God. believing in Christ, no stranger to private devotion, 
or to the holiest offices of the Church^to ichich he belongerJ; 
but ever gratefully acknowledging a Divine aid and direction 
everything he attempted, and in everything he accom- 
plished. What epithet, what attribute could be added to that 
consummate character, to commend it as an example above 
all other characters in human history ! '" 

The learned Historiographer of the American Episcopal 
Church says: -That Washington was a communicant of the 
Church previous to the war of the Revolution, admits of no 
doubt, if any regard is to be paid to the testimony of numer- 
ous witnesses who could not have been deceived. That he 
was not a frequent or regular communicant after the War and 



FRANKLIN AN EPISCOPALIAN. 



411 



while in public office, is equally certain, but the testimony 
adduced by the celebrated Dr. Chapman, a distinguished 
Clergyman of the Church, is conclusive as to his occasional 
reception. Dr. Chapman's words are as follows : " From the 
lips of a lady of undoubted veracity, yet living, and a worthy 
communicant of the Church, I received the interesting fact 
that soon after the close of the Revolutionary War she saw 
him partake of the consecrated symbols of the Body and 
Blood of Christ, in Trinity Church, in the city of New York." 

" Major Popham's testimony ' that he believed without a 
doubt that they both, President and Lady Washington, 
received the Holy Communion ' at St. Paul's, New York, 
comes from one who had every possible opportunity to know 
whereof he affirmed." 



IV. 

FRANKLIN AN EPISCOPALIAN. 
Lecture Y; Page 290. 

TN a letter addressed to his daughter, under date of Novem- 
ber 8, 1754, Dr. Benjamin Franklin writes : " Go con- 
stantly to Church. The act of devotion in the Common 
Prayer Book is your principal business there, and, if properly 
attended to, will do more towards amending the heart than 
sermons generally do. P wish you would never miss the 
prayer days." Bishop Coleman points out that "it was he 
who, when the Convention of 1787, for framing the Federal 
Constitution, had made but small progress in its business, 
proposed that the Clergy of Philadelphia should be invited to 
say prayers at the morning sessions of the Convention." 
After the Revolution, Franklin was at the pains of revising 
the Prayer Book to suit the altered conditions and his own 
ideas, which, to say the least, were somewhat eccentric. Our 



^-L'^ APPENDICES. 

Historiographer sajs : " Bishop White had this work in his 
hand when the 'Proposed Book' was in process of preparation 
by the committee consisting of Provost Smith, of the Univer- 
sity of Pennsylvania, William White and Charles H. Whar- 
ton, the latter being the first convert from Romanism to the 
faith of the American Church." 



V. 



JEFFERSON AN EPISCOPALIAN. 

Lecture Y; Page 289. 

/V CORRESPONDENT of ''The Churchman" recently 
communicated to that paper the following extract from 
Dr. John Stoughton's "History of Religion in England:" 
" Bishop Wilberforce, in his 'American Church,' p. 175, calls 
him the 'Deist Jefferson,' but I have before me an autograph 
letter by Jefferson, dated August 10, 1823, in which, reply- 
ing to some application for pecuniary aid, he says : 

'The principle that every religious sect is to maintain its 
own teachers and institutions is too reasonable, and too well 
established in our country to need justification. I have been, 
from my infancy, a member of the' Episcopalian Church, and 
to that I owe and make my contributions. Were I to go 
beyond that limit in favor of any other sectarian Institution ' 
I should be equally bound to do so for every other, and their 
number is beyond the faculties of any individual. I believe 
therefore, that m this, as in every other case, everything will 
be better conducted if left to those immediately interested. 
On these grounds I trust that your candor will excuse my re- 
turning the inclosed paper without my subscription ; and that 
you will accept the assurance of my great personal respect and 

'Th. JeffersoA.'" 
The publication of this letter, says Bishop Perry, elicited 
from the granddaughter of Jefferson, Sarah N. Randolph, who 
was engaged in preparing a complete edition of her ancestor's 
works, a letter under date of May 19, 1888, confirmatory of 



THE CO^fSTITUTION. 



413 



the statement made in text. The closing paragraph of this 
letter is as follows : 

" It may interest you to know that I have Mr. Jefferson's 
little pocket Prayer "^Book, which he used in his constant at- 
tendance at the Episcopal Church, in Charlottesville. For a 
long time, too, there was in the possession of my family a 
littfe folding chair or camp stool of his own invention, so 
made that it looked, when it closed, like a stout cane. This 
he carried in hand, though on horseback, and used as his 
seat in Church. Pardon this long letter with which I have 
presumed to inflict a stranger, and believe me to be. 

Yours respectfully, Saeah N. Randolph." 

VI. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE 
FAITH OF ITS FKAMERS. 

Lecture V; Pages 278-292. 

TN his little publication, "The Faith of the Framers of the 

Constitution of the United States," the Bishop of Iowa 
gives a most interesting account of the Church relationship, 
so far as it can be ascertained by the most painstaking investi- 
gation, of those who in Convention assembled formed our 
Constitution and affixed their signatures to this all-important 
national document. I give the result of Dr. Perry's investi- 
gation without the proofs : 

New Hampshire — John Langdon, Congregationalist ; 
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist. 

Massachusetts — Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist; 
Rufus King, Episcopalian. 

Connecticut — William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian; 
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist. 

New York — Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian. 

New Jersey — William Livingstone, Presbyterian; David 
Brearly, Episcopalian ; William Patterson, Presbyterian ; 
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian. 



4-14. 

^-^^ APPENDICES. 



M-ffl r^*'"^'"^'"^''^"'''^"' Episcopalian; Thomas 

Mifflm, Episcopahan; Robert Morris, Episcopalian Geo"! 
Clymer, Episcopalian; Thomas Fitzsimons, Roman Cathonf 

SolT/r ' ""^T' f P'-°P''«-- His descendants re 
Episcopalians, and have been so for several generations 

JlTan. ' ^P"""?^'-^" ' G°--erneur Moris, Episco 

Delaware -George Read, Episcopalian; Gunning Bed- 
ford. Jr. Presbyterian; John DickinsoA, originally a Quaker 
but in later life inclined toward the Episcopal Church He 
was a liberal contributor to the funds of the Church Corpora- 
tion for the relief of the widows and orphans of our Clergy. 
Richard Bassett, originally an Episcopalian, but later in liffa 
Methodist ; Jacob Brown, Episcopalian 

Maryland -James MoHenry. Presbyterian; Daniel of 
Jenifer, Episcopalian ; Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic 

.Virginia — George Washington, Episcopalian; John Blair 
Episcopalian ; James Madison, Jr., Episcopalian. 

North Carolina - William Bfount, Episcopalian ; Richard 
D. Spright Episcopalian ; Hugh Williamson, Presb -terian. 

Souh Carolina -John Rutledge, Episcopalian; Charles 
C. Pmckney, Episcopalian; Charles Pinokne/ Episiopalian 
Pierce Butler, Episcopalian. " p.^copaiian , 

Georgia -William Few, Episcopalian; Abraham Bald- 
win, Congregationahst. 

This list, as Bishop Perry observes, shows that about two- 
thirds of those who framed and attested by their signatures 
the Constitution of the United States, were ionnected with the 
Episcopal Church. He gives the names of some ten or twelve 
more or less distinguished members of the Convention who 
w-ere Episcopalians, but who, owing to necessary absence at 
the time of the completion of the work, did not affix their sig- 
natures to the Constitution. Surely it must be conceded that 
the learned Bishop is right when he says : " No other religious 
body in the land, if judged in the light of history, has any 
claim to be compared with, or to be regarded as the American 
Church.' * 



* See Appendix XXIV. 



VII. 



GROWTH OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
Lecture V; Page 304. 

OUR growth during the ten years covered by the last 
census, 1880-1890, has been indeed phenomenal as 
will appear from the following tabulated statement of com- 
municants : 




Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Dakotas (two) 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine • : • ■ 

Maryland and Dist. of Columbia. 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 



3,955 
1,010 
4,323 
1,758 
20,953 
1,746 
2,026 
1,789 
4,536 
11,320 
3,830 
4,203 
2,187 
4,295 
3,782 
2,170 
23,573 
18,076 
10,749 
5,243 
2,386 
5,413 
575 
1,926 
315 
2,066 



6,196 
2,200 
11,239 
4,366 
27,374 
3,680 
2,943 
4,409 
5,975 
20,040 
6,126 
6,526 
3,072 
7,079 
5,256 
3,080 
30,956 
29,487 
18,482 
10,973 
3,281 
9,356 
1,514 
4,274 
576 
2,894 



(415) 



416 



APPENDICES. 



New Jersey 

New Mexico and Arizona. 

New York 

North Carolina ] 

Ohio ; ; 

Oregon * ' ' 

Pennsylvania [ 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina . . 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming and Idaho 



1880 


1890 


Per cent, of 




increase. 






78- 




I/O 


Dyb 


297- 






16 1,46/ 


50- 




0,ooD 


Q /IT r» 
o,41U 


44- 






lo,UO/ 


54- 






oaf; 


207- 




39,251 


Oo,o/ 


44- 






lU,ooo 


52- 






Pi 7Q7 


22- 




3,500 


6,044 


724- 


4,388 


7,379 


68- 




385 


767 


99- 




3,488 


4,244 


21- 




13,951 


19,042 


374 




339 


2,585 


662+ 


1,945 


3,109 


59- 




7,133 


10,609 


48- 




371 


1,733 


367- 





VIII. 



NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS ON THE 
PRAYER BOOK. 

Lecture YI; Page 318. 

^HE following passages bearing testimony to the unrivaled 
excellency of the Book of Common Prayer, are collected 
from the writings of representatives of nearly all the chief 
bodies of Christians, or from what unbiased literary critics have 
to say about our Liturgy. The first quotation shall be from 
Taine's "History of English Literature." The author of this 
famous work, by common consent the best upon the subject, 
was, I suppose, a French Protestant. I give what he has to say 
somewhat at length, because of his extracts from the Prayer 



NON-EPISCOPALIAN ET«ICOMIUMS. 



417 



Book which will enable those not acquainted with it, to form 
something of an independent estimation of its merits. 

"This Prayer Book is an admirable book, in which the 
full spirit of the Reformation breathes out, where, beside 
the moving tenderness of the Gospel, and the manly ac- 
cents of the Bible, throb the profound emotion, the grave 
eloquence, the noble-mindedness, the restrained enthusiasm of 
the heroic and poetic souls who had rediscovered Christianity, 
and had passed near the fire of martyrdom. 'Almighty and 
most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from Thy 
ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the de- 
vices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against 
Thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we 
ought to have done ; and we have done those things which we 
ought not to have done ; and there is no health in us. But 
Thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. 
Spare Thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore 
Thou them that are penitent, according to Thy promises de- 
clared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O 
most merciful Father, for His sake, that we may hereafter live 
a godly, righteous, and sober life.' 'Almighty and everlasting 
God, who hatest nothing that Thou hast made, and dost forgive 
the sins of all them that are penitent, create and make in us 
new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, 
and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of Thee, the 
God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness.' The 
same idea of sin, repentance, and moral renovation continually 
recurs ; the master-thought is always that of the heart humbled 
before invisible justice, and only imploring His grace in order 
to obtain His relief. Such a state of mind ennobles man, and 
introduces a sort of impassioned gravity in all the important 
actions of his life. Listen to the Liturgy of the deathbed, of 
Baptism, of marriage ; the latter first : ' Wilt thou have this 
woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's 
ordinance, in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love 

C. A.— 27 



418 



APPENDICES. 



her, comfort her, honor, and keep her in sickness and in 
health ; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so 
long as ye both shall live?' These are genuine, honest, and 
conscientious words. Xo mystic languor, here or elsewhere. 
This religion is not made for women who dream, yearn, and 
sigh, but for men who examine themselves, act and have confi- 
dence, confidence in some one more just than themselves. When 
a man is sick, and his flesh is weak, the Priest comes to him, 
and says : ' Dearly beloved, know this that Almighty God is 
the Lord of life and death, and of all things to them pertaining, 
as youth, strength, health, age, weakness and sickness. Where- 
fore, whatsoever your sickness is, know you certainly, that it 
is God's visitation. And for what cause soever this sickness 
is sent unto you ; whether it be to try your patience for the 
example of others, or else it be sent unto you to correct 
and amend in you whatsoever doth offend the eyes of your 
heavenly Father ; know you certainly, that if you truly repent 
you of your sins, and bear your sickness patiently, trusting 
in God's mercy, submitting yourself wholly unto"^ His will, 
it shall turn to your profit, and help you forward in the 
right way that leadeth unto everlasting life.' A great mys- 
terious sentiment, a sort of sublime epic, void of images, 
shows darkly amid these probings of the conscience ; I mean 
a glimpse of the Divine government and of the invisible world, 
the only existences, the only realities, in spite of bodily ap- 
pearances and of the brute chance, which seems to jumble all 
things together. Man sees this beyond at distant intervals, 
and raises himself out of his mire, as though he had suddenly 
breathed a pure and strengthening atmosphere." 

The "North British Review," a Scottish Presbyterian 
periodical, contained an article some time ago from whicl 1 this 
is quoted : " The Liturgy is the choicest selection of what has 
proved to be best during a long lapse of time. Its Litanies 
and its Collects are the fruit of the most sublime piety, and 
the noblest gifts of language, tested by long sustained trial. 



NON-EPISCOPALIAX ENCOlSriUMS. 



419 



No single generation could have created, or could replace the 
Liturgy. It is the accumulation of the treasures with which 
the most diversified experience, the most fervent devotion, 
and the most exalted genius, have enriched the worship of 
prayer and praise during fifteen hundred years. Who, then, 
can overestimate its influence in perpetuating the sacred fire 
of Christian love and Christian faith among a whole people, or 
exaggerate its power in conserving the pure and Apostolic 
type of Christian worship." 

Dr. Doddridge, an English Independent divine and ex- 
positor says of the Prayer Book : " The language is so plain 
as to be level to the capacity of the meanest, and yet the 
sense is so noble as to raise the capacity of the highest." 

Rev. Albert Barnes, the great commentator among American 
Presbyterians, says : " We have always thought that there are 
Christian minds and hearts that would find more edification 
in the forms of worship in that Church than in any other. 
We have never doubted that many of the purest flames of 
devotion that rise from the earth, ascend from the Altars of the 
Episcopal Church, and that many of the purest spirits that the 
earth contains, minister at those Altars and breathe forth their 
prayers and praises in language consecrated by the use of 
piety for centuries." 

Another Presbyterian, Professor Shields, of Princeton 
University, writes : " The English Liturgy, next to the Eng- 
lish Bible, is the most wonderful product of the Reformation. 
The very fortunes of the book are the romance of history. 
As we trace its development, its rubrics seem dyed in the 
blood of martyrs ; its oflaces echo with polemic phrases ; 
its canticles mingle with the battle-cries of armed sects and 
factions; and its successive revisions mark the career of dy- 
nasties, states and Churches. Cavalier, Covenanter and Pur- 
itan have crossed their swords over it ; scholars and soldiers, 
statesmen and Churchmen, kings and commoners, have united 
in defending it. England, Germany, Geneva, Scotland, 



'^^^ APPENDICES. 



America, have, by turns, been the scene of its conflicts. Far 
beyond the little island which was its birthplace, its influence 
has been silently spreading in connection with great political 
and religious changes, generation after generation, from land 
to land, even where its name was never heard. At first sight, 
indeed, the importance which this book has acquired, may 
seem quite beyond its merits, as the Bible itself might appear, 
to a superficial observer, a mere idol of bigotry and prejudice.' 
But the explanation is in both cases somewhat the same. It 
is to be found in the fact that the Prayer Book, like the Sacred 
Canon, is no merely individual production, nor even purely 
human work, but an accumulation of choice writings, partly 
Divine, partly human, expressing the religious mind of the 
whole ancient and modern world, as enunciated by Prophets 
and Apostles, Saints and Martyrs, and formulated by councils, 
synods and conferences, all seeking heavenly light and guid- 
ance. Judaism has given to it its Lessons and Psalter ; Chris- 
tianity has added its Epistles and Gospels ; Catholicism has 
followed with its Canticles, Creeds and Collects ; and Protes- 
tantism has completed it with its Exhortations, Confessions and 
Thanksgivings. At the same time, each leading phase of the 
Reformation has been impressed upon its composite materials. 
Lutheranism has molded its Ritual ; Calvinism has framed its 
Doctrine ; Episcopalianism has dominated both Ritual and 
Doctrine ; whilst Presbyterianism has subjected each to thor- 
ough revision. And the whole has been rendered into the 
pure English and with the sacred fervor peculiar to the 
earnest age in which it arose ; has been wrought into a system 
adapted to all classes of men, through all the vicissitudes of 
life, and has been tested and hallowed by three centuries of 
trial in every quarter of the globe. It would be strange if a 
work which thus has its roots in the whole Church of the past, 
should not be sending forth its branches into the whole Church 
of the future ; and anyone who will take the pains to study 
its present adaptations, whatever may have been his preju- 



NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 



421 



dices, must admit that there is no other extant formulary 
which is so well fitted to become the rallying-point and stand- 
ard of modern Christendom. In it are to be found the means, 
possibly the germs, of a just reorganization of Protestantism, 
as well as an ultimate reconciliation with the true Catholicism, 
such a Catholicism as shall have shed everything sectarian and 
national, and retained only what is common to the whole 
Church of Christ in all ages and countries. Whilst to the 
true Protestant it offers Evangelical doctrine, worship and 
unity, on the terms of the Reformation, it still preserves, for 
the true Catholic, the choicest formulas of antiquity, and to 
all Christians of every name opens a liturgical system at once 
Scriptural and reasonable, doctrinal and devotional, learned 
and vernacular, artistic and spiritual. It is not too much to 
say that were the problem given, to frame out of the imper- 
fectly organized and sectarian Christianity of our times a 
liturgical model for the Communion of Saints in the one uni- 
versal Church, the result might be expressed in some such 
compilation as the English Book of Common Prayer." 

Some of the Methodists pronounced the Prayer Book Serv- 
ices to be "chaff" and so incapable of sustaining spiritual 
life. These received this contradiction and rebuke from John 
Wesley: "The prayers of the Church are not 'chaff ;' they are 
substantial food for any who are alive unto God." In his pref- 
ace to the " Sunday Service for the Methodists in America " 
which is simply an abridgment of the Prayer Book for con- 
venient use in missionary fields, he says : " I believe there is 
no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, 
which breathes more of solid, spiritual, rational piety than the 
Common Prayer of the Church of England." Elsewhere he 
says: "I hold all the doctrines of the Church of England. I 
love her Liturgy." 

Dr. Adam Clarke, the most learned commentator among 
Wesley's followers, says : " It is the greatest effort of the Re- 
formation, next to the translation of the Scriptures into the 



422 



APPEJS-DICES. 



English language. As a form of devotion it has no equal in 
anj part of the Universal Church of God. It is founded on 
those doctrines which contain the sum and e^ssence of Chris- 
tianity, and speaks the languao-e of the sublimest piety, and of 
the most refined devotional feeling. Next to the Bible it is 
the book of my understanding and of my heart." 

Dr. Watson, another choice spirit of Methodism, the well- 
known author of the Theological Institutes, said: -Such a 
Liturgjmakes the Service of God's house appear more like the 
busmess of the Lord's Day ; and besides the aid it afPords to the 
most devout and spiritual, a great body of Evangelical truth 
IS, by constant use. laid up in the minds of children and igno- 
rant people. who, when at length they begin to praj under a 
religious concern, are already furnished with suitable, sancti- 
fpng, solemn and impressive petitions. Persons well ac- 
quainted with the Liturgy are certainly in a state of important 
preparation for the labors of a preacher, and their piety 
often takes a richer and more sober character from that cir- 
cumstance.'' 

Robert Hall, one of the brightest lights that ever shone 
among the Baptists, and one that would have been bright in 
any firmament, confesses that "the Evangelical purity of the 
Prayer Book, the chastened fervor of its devotions, and the 
majestic simplicity of its language, have combined to place 
it m the very first rank of uninspired compositions." 

The following is from the memoirs of the learned Cono-re- 
gationalist. Professor Phelps: - The Liturgy of the Episcopal 
Church has become very precious to me. The depth of its 
meaning, it seems to me, nobody can fathom who has not ex- 
perienced some great sorrow. We have lost much in parting 
with the prayers of the old Mother Church : and what have we 
gained in their place ? I do not feel in extemporaneous prayer 
the deep undertone of devotion which rings out from the old 
Collects of the Church like the sound of ancient bells. I lono-ed 
for, and prayed for, and worst of all, waited for, some sublLe 



?T02s-EPISC0PALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 



423 



and revolutionary change of heart ; and what that was, as a 
fact on a child's experience, I have not the remotest idea. If 
I had been trained in the Episcopal Church, I should at the 
time have been confirmed, and entered upon a consciously 
religious life, and grown up into Christian living of the Epis- 
copal type." 

This is the testimony of another gifted Congregation- 
alist of this country, the Rev. Thomas K. Beecher : "The Epis- 
copal Church offers for our use the most venerable Liturgy in 
the English tongue. The devotional treasures of the Roman 
Catholic Church are embalmed and buried in Latin. But in 
English there are no Lessons, Gospels, Psalms, Collects, Con- 
fessions, Thanksgivings, Prayers-<-in one word, no religious 
form book that can stand a moment in comparison with the 
Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church in the two-fold quality 
of richness and age. The proper name, because truly descrip- 
tive, for this Church would be the Church of the Prayer Book. 
As is the way with all other Churches, so here, the Church 
champions and leaders have many wise things to say about the 
Church and her prerogative. But the pious multitudes that 
frequent her courts are drawn thither mostly by love of the 
prayers and praises, the Litanies and Lessons of the Prayer 
Book. And, brethren of every name, I certify that you rarely 
hear in any Church a prayer spoken in English that is not in- 
debted to\he Prayer Book for some of its choicest periods. 
And further, I doubt whether life has in store for any of you 
an uplift so high, or downfall so deep, but that you can find 
company for your soul and fitting words for your lips among 
the treasures of this Book of Common Prayer. ' In all time 
of our tribulation ; in all time of our prosperity; in the hour of 
death and in the day of judgment. Good Lord deliver us.' 
No transient observer can adequately value this treasure of a 
birthright Churchman; to be using to-day the self-same 
words that have through the centuries declared the faith, or 
made known the prayer, of that mighty multitude, who, 'being 



424 



APPENDICES. 



now delivered from the burden of flesh, are in joy and felicity' 
to be baptized in early infancy and never to know a time 
when we were not recognized and welcome among the mil- 
lions who have entered by the same door; to be confirmed in 
due time in a faith that has sustained a noble army of con- 
fessors, approving its worth through persecutions and pros- 
perities, a strength to the tried and a chastening to the 
worldly-minded ; to be married by an authority before which 
kings and peasants bow alike, asking benediction upon the 
covenant that, without respect of persons, binds by the same 
words of duty the highest and the lowest ; to bring our new- 
born children as we were brought, to begin where we began 
and to grow up to fill our places ; to die in the faith, and al- 
most hear the Gospel words soon to be spoken over one's own 
grave as over the thousand times ten thousand of those who 
have slept in Jesus. In short, to be a devout and consistent 
Churchman, brings a man through aisles fragrant with holy 
association, and accompanied by a long procession of the good, 
chanting, as they march, a unison of piety and hope until they 
come to the holy place where shining Saints sing the new song 
of the redeemed. And they sing with them." 

The distinguished brother of the author of the above 
eulogium, Henry Ward Beecher, was quite as enthusiastic in 
his praise of our form of worship. He wrote thus in a letter 
from Scotland after attending a Church Service : " The serv- 
ices began. You know my mother was, until her marriage, 
m the Communion of the Episcopal Church. This thought 
hardly left me, while I sat, grateful for the privilege of wor- 
shipping God through a Service that had expressed so often 
her devotions. I cannot tell you how much I was affected. 
I had never had such a trance of worship, and I shall never 
have such another view until I gain the gate. I am so . 
Ignorant of the Church Service that I cannot tell the various 
parts by their right names ; but the parts which most affected 
me were the prayers and responses which the choir sang. I 



NON-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 



425 



had never heard any part of a supplication — a direct prayer 
sung by a choir— and it seemed as though I heard not 
with my ear, but with my souL I was dissolved, my whole 
being seemed to me like an incense wafted gratefully towards 
God. The Divine Presence rose before me in wondrous 
majesty, but of ineffable gentleness and goodness. Through- 
out the Service, and it was an hour and a quarter long, 
whenever an Amen occurred, it was given by the choir, 
accompanied by the organ and the congregation. Oh, that 
swell and solemn cadence yet rings in my ear. Not once, 
not a single time, did it occur in that Service without bringing 
tears from my eyes. I stood like a shrub in a spring morning, 
every leaf covered with dew, and .every breeze shook down 
some drops. I trembled so much at times, that I was obliged 
to sit down. Oh, when in the prayers, breathed forth in strains 
of sweet, simple, solemn music, the love of Christ was recog- 
nized, how I longed then to give utterance to what that love 
seemed to me. There was a moment in which the heavens 
seemed opened to me, and I saw the glory of God ! All the 
earth seemed to me a storehouse of images, made to set forth 
the Redeemer, and I could scarcely keep still from crying 
out." No wonder that Mr. Beecher before his death ar- 
ranged with an Episcopal Clergyman to officiate at his funeral, 
using the Church's Burial Service. The marvel is that both 
he and his scarcely less brilliant brother did not, like their 
sister, Harriet Beecher Stowe, find their way back to the 
Church of their maternal ancestors. 

Want of space compels us to conclude these quotations 
with an extract from one of Mr. Edmund Clarence Stedman's 
lectures on Poetry, delivered at Johns Hopkins University and 
published in the " Century Magazine." Mr. Stedman stands in 
the front rank of living poets and critics. He is not a mem- 
ber of the Church, but few if any of her sons have a higher 
appreciation of her worship than he, and I know of none who 
have spoken more eloquently of it. " Let me refer," says he, 



426 



APPENDICES. 



"to a single illustration of the creative faith of the poet. For 
centuries all that was great in the art and poetry of Christen- 
dom grew out of that faith. What seems to me its most poetic, 
as well as the most enduring, written product is not, as you 
might suppose, the masterpiece of a single mind— the ' Divina 
Comedia,' for instance— but the outcome of centuries, the 
expression of manj human souls, even of various peoples and 
races. Upon its literary and constructive side I regard the 
venerable Liturgy of the historic Christian Church as one of 
the few world-poems, the poems universal. I care not which 
of the Rituals you follow, the Oriental, the Alexandrian, the 
Latin, or the Anglican. The latter, that of an Episcopal 
Prayer Book, is a version familiar to you of what seems to me 
the most wonderful symphonic idealization of human faith — 
certainly the most inclusive, blending in harmonic succession 
all the cries and longings and laudations of the universal 
human heart invoking a Paternal Creator. I am not here con- 
sidering this Liturgy as Divine, though much of it is derived 
from what multitudes accept for revelation. I have in mind 
its human quality ; the mystic tide of human hope, imagina- 
tion, prayer, sorrows, and passionate expression, upon which 
it bears the worshipper along, and wherewith it has sustained 
men's souls with conceptions of duty and immortality through- 
out hundreds, yes, thousands of undoubting years. The 
Orient and the Occident have enriched it with their finest and 
strongest utterances, have worked it over and over, have 
stricken from it what was against the consistency of its import 
and beauty. It has been a growth, an exhalation, an apoc- 
alyptic cloud 'arisen with the prayers of the Saints," from 
climes of the Hebrew, the Greek, the Roman, the Goth, to 
spread in time over half the world. It is the voice of human 
brotherhood, the blended voice of rich and poor, old and 
young, the wise and simple. This being its nature, and as 
the crowning masterpiece of faith, you find that in various and 
constructive beauty — as a work of poetic art — it is unparal- 



XOX-EPISCOPALIAN ENCOMIUMS. 



427 



leled. It is lyrical from first to last with perfect harmonious 
forms of human speech. Its chants and anthems, its songs 
of praise and hope and sorrow have allied to themselves 
impressive music from the originative and immemorial past, 
and the enthralling strains of its inheritors. Its prayers are 
not only 'for all sorts and conditions of men,' but for every 
stress of life which mankind must feel in common— in the 
household, or isolated, or in tribal or national effort, and in 
calamity and repentance and thanksgiving. Its wisdom is 
forever" old and perpetually new ; its calendar celebrates all 
seasons of the rolling year ; its narrative is of the simplest, 
the most pathetic, the*^ most rapturous, and most ennobling 
life the world has known. There is no malefactor so wretched, 
no just man so perfect, as not to find his hope, his consolation, 
his lesson in this poem of poems. I have called it lyrical ; it 
is dramatic in structure and effect ; it is an epic of the age of 
faith ; but, in fact, as a piece of inclusive literature, it has no 
counterpart, and can have no successor."' 



But it may be asked, if the Book of Common Prayer con- 
tains a form" of worship so superior to the extempore use 
which prevails with Protestants, how is it that this superiority 
is appreciated by comparatively so few among us? We 
answer this question by asking another. Why is it that m 
the world of art the vast majority are not able to distinguish 
the inferior from the superior, and in nine cases out of^ ten 
prefer a trifling ditty to an oratorio, a daub to a masterpiece, 
or a doggerel to a poem? It is simply because their educa- 
tion is deficient. 

" There must be, in ordinary circumstances," writes one 
who came to the Episcopal Church from Presbyterianism, 
" not only a taste, but an educated and cultivated taste, to 
appreciate beauty in a landscape, grace in a statue, refinement 
in manners, elegance in literature, force in eloquence, melody 



428 



APPEXDICES. 



in music, purity in morals, and. to come to the point in hand, 
perfection in worship. Time, or opportunity, at least, must be' 
allowed to correct and adapt the taste. It is impossible to 
rise at a bound from the impression that the sermon is the 
siumnum bonum for which we turn our feet towards the 
sanctuary, into the feeling— not new, I apprehend, to the 
heart of the yeriest worldling among the Episcopalians — that 
when we 'go within thy gates. O Zion.' it is to worship God. 
It is not possible, from the heavy, dull commonplaces of an 
extemporaneous prayer, which it is enough to have heard once, 
to rise, by a single effort, to the dignity of a Liturgy, which,' 
to be adequately admired, must be heard a thousai^d times.' 
It is impossible to settle down, from the fitful, feverish and 
momentary flights of the revival and the camp-ground into 
the chastened and life-long fervor of the incomparable 
Liturgy," 

Moreover, but for inherited prejudices, many would recog- 
nize the superiority and appreciate the beauties of the Prayer 
Book, who now inveigh against it. A curious illustration of 
the force of prejudice is related of the parishioners of the 
famous Bishop Bull, who. during the Commonwealth, when 
the use of the Liturgy was prohibited, committed to memory 
the various Services of the Prayer Book, and made them the 
channel of the public devotions of the people in the parish of 
which he was then minister. '• The consequence of which was."' 
says the biographer; "that they who were most prejudiced 
against the Liturgy did not scruple to commend Bishop Bull 
as a person that prayed by the Spirit, though at the same time 
they railed at the Common Prayer as a beggarly element, and 
as a carnal performance." 



IX. 



JOHN WESLEY ALWAYS AN EPLSCOPALJAN. 
Lecture YII; Page 205. 

TN order to feel the force of the following quotations from 
A Mr Wesley's works, it will be necessary to bear in mmd 
that he was bom in the year 1703 and that he died a. d. 179L 
at the extreme old age of 88 years. The extracts from his 
writings cover the latter half of his life, the first being passed 
over because it is never claimed that he was anything except 
a Churchman during the earlier part of his career. 

1746 • " I dare not renounce Communion with the Church 
of England. As a minister I teach her doctrines ; I use her 
offices • I conform to her Rubrics ; I suffer reproach for my 
attachment to her. As a private member, I hold her doctrmes ; 
I ioin in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, m commumcat- 
ing." VoL VIII, p. 444. 

1747 • " We continually exhort all who attend on our 
preaching, to attend the offices of the Church. And they do 
pay a more regular attendance there than they ever did be- 
fore." Vol. VIII, p. 488. 

1755: "We began reading together -'A Gentleman s 
Reasons for His Dissent from the Church of England It is 
an elaborate and lively tract, and contains the strength of the 
cause ; but it did not yield us one proof that it is lawful for us, 
ranch less our duty, to separate from it. V ol. 11, p. 6^Q. 

1758 • In this year Mr. Wesley wrote his " Reasons Against 
a Separation from the Church of England ; " and in writing to 
Miss Bishop in 1778, he says : " These reasons were never yet 
answered and I believe they never wi l '' Th^.^^^; ^^^^f^^^^ 
Wesley says of this tract : " I think myself bound m duty to add 
my testimony to my brother's. His twelve reasons against 
our ever separating from the Church of England are mine also. 
I subscribe to them with all .my heart. My affection for the 

(429.) 



APPEXDICES. 

. Church is as strong as ever ; and I clearly see my calling, which 
s to hye and die in her Communion. This, therefore, I am de 
termmed to do, the Lord being my helper."' Vol. XIII, p 199. 

1759 : -I receiyed much comfort at the old Church in the 
morning, and at St. Thomas" in the afternoon. It was as if 
both the sermons were made for me, I pity those who can 
find no good at Church ! But how should they, if prejudice 
corne between them? An effectual bar to the Grace^of tod!" 
vol. 11, p. 4<« -I had appointed to preach at seven in the 
evening at Bradford, but when I came. I found Mr. Ha t was 
to preach at six. so I delayed till the Church Service was 
ended, that there might not appear on my part, at least, even 
the shadow of opposition between us." Vol. II. p. 516. 

1761 : We had a long stage from hence to Swadale. where 
I found an earnest, loving, simple people, whom I likewise ex- 
horted not to leave the Church, though they had not the best 
of ministers." Vol. III. p. 61 . 

1763: -I then related what I had done since I came to 
Norwich first, and what I would do for the time to come, par- 
ticularly that I would immediately put a stop to preaching in 
the time of Church Service." Vol. III. p. lo2. 

1766: 'a see clearer and clearer none will keep to us 
unless they keep to the Church. Whoever separates from the 
i^hurch separates from the Methodists. "* Vol. III. p. 260. 

1767 : •• I rode to Varmouth. and found the Society, after 

the example of Mr. AV p. had entirely left the Church I 

judged it needful to speak largely upon that head. They 
stood reproved and resolved, one and all. to go to it ao-ain.^" 
V ol. 111. p. 2 <2. o » 

1768: "I advise- all. over whom I have any influence, 
steadily to keep to the Church." Vol. Ill, p. 337; 

1..0: - We had a poor sermon at Church. However, I 
went again in the afternoon, remembering the words of Mr. 
Phihp Henry: 'If the preacher does not know his duty. I bless 
God that I know mine." "" Vol. III. p. 401. 

1772: ''I attended the Church of England Service in the 
morning, and that of the Kirk in the afternoon. Truly. • no 
man having drunk old wine, straio-htway desireth new.' ^ How 
dull and dry the latter appeared to me. who had been accus- 
tomed to the former."* Vol. III. p. 463. 



JOHN WESLEY ALAVAYS AN EPISCOPALIAN. 431 

1775 : "rnderstandinD' that almost all the Methodists, by 

the advice of Mr. Had left the Church. I earnestly 

exhorted them to return to it."' Vol. . p. 64. 

1777 • ^- They, the Methodists, have read the writnigs ot 
the most eminent pleaders for separation, both in the last and 
present century. They have spent several days m a General 
Conference upon this Very question : -Is it expedient, sup- 
posincr. not granting, that it is lawful, to separate from the 
Established Church?' But still they could see no sufficient 
cause to depart from their first resolution. So that their fixed 
purpose is. let the Clergy or Laity use them ^^ell or ill. by the 
Irace of God. to endure all things, to hold on their even 
bourse." Vol. VII, p. 428. , , , . 

1778- "The orio-inal Methodists were all of the Church ot 
Eno-land". and the more awakened they were, the more zeah 
ouslv they adhered to it in every pomt. both of doctrine and 
discipline. Hence we inserted in the very first Rules of our 
Society: ^They that leave the Church leave us. And this we 
did. not as a ^oint of prudence, but a point of conscience. 
Vol XIII V 134. -I believe one reason why God is pleased 
to co;tinue my life so long is. to confirm them in their present 
purpose, not to separate from the Church ^ ol. A 11. p. ^ 
SiLe not separW from the Church; I believe it would be 
a sin so to do; I have been true to my profession from 1 .dU to 
this day." Vol. VII. p. 279. 

1785: -Finding that a report had been spread abroad that 
I was just ^oing^to leave the Church to satisfy those that 
were grieved concerning it, I openly declared m the even- 
ing thft I had now no more thought of separating rom the 
Church, than I had forty years ago. ^ ol. iV, p. o,U. 

1786- "Whenever there is any Church Service I do not 
approve of any appointment the same hour; because 
Church of Endand. and would assist, not oppose it. all I can. 
Vol XIII p. 55. [This is taken from a letter to the Rev. 1 ree- 
born Garretson, of the Methodist Society in America and 
clearly shows that in no instance did he suffer anything t^ be 
done to oppose the Church of England, whether in the States 
or at home.] 

1787 • - 1 went over to Deptford. but it seemed I was got 
into a den of lions. Most of the leading men of the Society 
were mad for separating from the Church. I endeavored to 



432 



APPEXDICES. 



reason with them, but in vain ; they had neither sense nor even 

cieU. I told them : -If you are resolved you may have your 
service m Church hours; but remember, from that time you 

hnt M ""''i ^^^^ ''''''^ ^^^P' from that 

hour I have heajd no more of separating from the Church." 
VOL IV p. do/ -Few of them, those who separated as- 
signed the unhohness of either the Clergy or Laitj L the cluse 
of their separation. And if any did so, it did not appear tha? 
f^/" VIi:;^^^^^ better than those they^parated 

Vai^^r "^t''' ^^'^ peculiar glory of the people called 
Methodists In spite of all manner of temptations^hey will 
not separate from the Church. What manj ^o earnestly ove 

p 232 ' '^''^''''^ ^""'^^^'^ ^'^1^- ^"l' 

1789: -Unless I see more reasons for it than I ever yet 

TJ\l r V7 England, as by law 

es abhshed while the breath of God is in my nostrils." ^ Vol. 
^111. p. dSH. In this year, two before his death, Mr. Wesley 
Church'" ^'^^"^ "^""'^ ^^^'''^^ separating from the 

1790: -I have been uniform, both in doctrine and disci- 
pline, for above these fifty years, and it is a little too late for 
Tu VlTo '""Xf ^ am gray-headed." Vol. 

Pi: '\ ^ Methodists in general are members of the 

Church of England. They hold all her Doctrines, attend her 
Services, and partake of her Sacraments." Vol. XIII, p. 119. 



X. 

POPE PIUS IV. A.yn THE EXGLISH PRAYER BOOK. 
Lecture II ; Page 130. 
interesting letter upon this subject, from Dr. W. D. 
Wilson, has recently appeared in the Xew York Church- 
man, under the heading, The Pope and the English Liturgy 
A New Confirmation of the story." It is substantially as fal- 
lows : In A.D. 1568-70, the Pope offered to accept the English 



POPE PIUS IV. AND THE ENGLISH PRAYER BOOK. 



433 



Liturgy, and allow it to be used in England, if only Elizabeth 
would "acknowledge that she had received it from him, and 
used it with his consent and in subordination to his authority. 
This story is commonly repeated as resting on the authority of 
Lord Coke, who is reported to have said that he had seen the 
letter. But Coke does not say, in his charge at Norwich, that 
he had seen it. What he does say is : " I have oftentimes 
heard it avowed by the late Queen, in her own wordes, and I 
conferred with some lordes that were of greatest reckoning, 
who had seen and read the letter." Of course, therefore, there 
was such a letter written. But, within a short time past, it has 
been found that in the " Calendar of State Papers," there is a 
dispatch from Lord Walsingham, who was then in France, to 
Lord Burleigh, dated June 21, 1571, in which it appears that 
there were some negotiations going on in regard to a marriage 
between Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Anjou, m which 
Walsingham says that an " offer was made by the Cardmal of 
Lorraine, that the Pope would have allowed and confirmed as 
Catholic the English Liturgy and other offices, so the Queen, 
my mistress, would have acknowledged the same as received 
from him." This was written while the negotiations for the 
marriage were pending. But after they had failed, and Eliza- 
beth had refused to accept the Pope's offer, he issued his 
famous bull of excommunication. But this statement of Wal- 
singham proves that such an offer was made, and this confirms 
the statement made by Lord Coke some thirty-five years after- 
wards. Now, although this statement of Walsingham does not 
prove that such a letter was sent, as Coke's statements do, it 
proves that such an offer was made, and throws an important 
light on the motives and reasons for it. 



C. A— 28 



434 



APPENDICES. 



XI. 

GREEK CATHOLICS AND ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
Lecture II ; Page 143. 

Though Anglican Orders have not been officially pro- 
nounced upon by the Greek Church, there can be no doubt that, 
if occasion for formal action should ever arise, their validity 
would be recognized. Romanists try to make it appear to the 
contrary by representing that when the Greek Church receives 
one who is in Anglican Orders he is reordained. They give 
no instance, and we do not remember to have seen the account 
of any. Even if their representation respecting the attitude of 
the Greeks towards our Otders be correct, it avails them noth- 
ing, for the Roman Clergy must also be reordained before 
they are allowed to minister at Greek Altars. But we are 
inclined to doubt the correctness of their representation. It 
is not long since we saw it stated that a " faddy" Ang- 
lican Clergyman persuaded a Russian nobleman to try to 
arrange for his reordination by the Metropolitan of St. Peters- 
burg. But the theological professsor there wrote to the Procura- 
tor : Take care what you are about, for the Greek Church has 
never disowned the Orders of the Church of England." The 
matter was looked into and the Anglican Priest returned 
home without being reordained. The subject was then given 
as the thesis for the theological degree in the academy, and all 
the students came to the conclusion that our Orders were 
valid. The statement, that at the Bonn Conference the Greeks 
voted against the acceptance of our Orders, has been shown by 
Canon MacColl to be contrary to fact. "The chief Greek 
Churchman present was Archbishop Lycourgus, and he 
accepted their validity." 



GREEK CATHOLICS AND ANGLICAN ORDERS. 



435 



Some years ago, the Patriarch of Jerusalem invited the 
Archbishop of Canterbury to send a Bishop to overlook the 
Anglican Church there. He has allowed our congregation the 
use of the Chapel of Abraham in the church of the Holy Sepul- 
chre and has often invited our Clergy to go with him to sacred 
Functions, and has placed them in the Chancel among his 
Clergy. A short time ago, the Russian Bishop of California, at 
the invitation of the Bishop of Iowa, was present in his Cathe- 
dral, and sat vested in his Chancel. At the Consecration of 
the Bishop of Massachusetts, the Archbishop of Zante, who 
came to represent the Eastern Churches at the World's Fair 
Parliament of Religions, was present in the Chancel during the 
Function, and preached a brief serinon. He was in attendance 
at the opening of the Diocesan Convention of New York, and 
received the Holy Communion at the hands of Bishop Potter. 
He also made an address at the Missionary Council in Chicago. 

In June, 1887, the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury in the following terms: "Most 
Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury, Exarch of all England, 
my Lord Metropolitan Brother, Beloved in Christ, my Lord 
Edward, we embrace your reverence in the Lord, and in 
gladness address you." 

In a correspondence which took place in a. d. 1896 be- 
tween the Ecclesiastical head of the Russian Church and that 
of the Anglican Communion the former addressed the latter 
as follows : " Palladius, by Divine mercy, Metropolitan of 
St. Petersburg and Ladoga, Archimandrite of the Lavra of the 
Holy Trinity and St. Alexander Nevsky, Presiding Member 
of the Most Holy Governing Synod of all the Russias, unto 
Edward, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All Eng- 
land and Metropolitan, greeting in the Lord." 

Lycourgus, late Archbishop of Syra and Tenedos, in a 
speech at Ely, in a. d. 1870, said, " When I return to Greece I 
will say that the Church of England is a sound Catholic Church, 
very like our own." * 



436 



APPENDICES. 



To the foregoing expressions of kindly feeling toward the 
English Church may be added the utterances of an Archiman- 
drite in the course of a correspondence in the columns of the 
West London Observer : " Permit me, as a member of the 
oldest branch of the great Catholic Church, namely, the Greek 
Church, to state that all right minded Catholics agree so far 
with the writer of the letter signed 'An English c'atholic,' as 
to freedom of speech. It is a great pity that discussion on 
religious subjects is not liked by the Roman Catholic sec- 
tion, who are really, like ourselves. Nonconformists in these 
Isles. The State Church of England we recognize as an 
important branch of the great Catholic Church, which was 
established prior to the Roman Mission. The Pope, or 
Bishop of Rome, is only head of that portion of the Cath- 
olic Church which adheres to the Roman doctrines of the 
Council of Trent, and has no authority over the Greek, Eng- 
lish, or any other Catholics. Shakespeare said, 'There is 
no ignorance but darkness,' so let all branches of the Cath- 
olic Church for the future be allowed free ventilation of re- 
ligious subjects." 



XII. 

JOHN WESLEY ON THE MINISTERIAL OFFICE. 

Lecture III ; Page 211. 

n^HE following is extracted from John Wesley's Sermon 
No. CXV. on "The Ministerial Office." The text is, 
"No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is 
called of God, as was Aaron:' —Hebrews V:4. It was deliv- 
ered at a Conference of Methodist preachers held in the 
city of Cork, May 4, 1789. This, it is important to remem- 
ber, was only two years before the death of Mr. Wesley and 
five years after his reputed ordination of Dr. Coke to the 



JOHX WESLEY OX THE MIXISTEEIAL OEFICE. 437 

Episcopate. The utterance is notewortliv on several ac- 
counts. It shows that Wesley up to that late date did not 
intend to found a Church ; that he did not understand his 
Service and laving on of hands in connection with Dr. Coke's 
departure for \\D^erica as a setting apart to the office of a 
Bishop ; that he did not feel constrained to depart from the 
Church of Eno-land in any essential feature of doctrine or 
discipline, and^in fact did^not do so, even in non-essentials, 
much if any further than such societies as the Brotherhood of 
St. Andrew have done in our day ; and that he did not regard 
the preachers whom he appointed over the Methodist socie- 
ties, as standino' on the same footing with the Clergy of the 
Church. It is difficult to see how any modern Methodist m 
the lio-ht of these quotations can regard himself as a follower 
of John ^Yesley. 

Many learned men have sTiown at large that our Lord 
Himself and all His Apostles, built the Christian Church as 
nearly as possible on the plan of the Jewish. So the great 
Hio-h Prie<=^t of our profession sent xlpostles and Evangelists 
to proclaim odad tidino-s to all the world : and then Pastors, 
Preacher<^. and Teachers, to build up in the Faith the congre- 
gations that should be founded. But I do not find that ever 
the office of an Evano-elist was the same with that of a Pastor, 
frequently called a Bishop. He presided over the flock, and 
administered the Sacraments ; the former assisted him. and 
preached the Word, either in one or more congregations. I 
cannot prove from any part of the New Testament, or from 
any author of the first three centuries, that the office of an 
Evangelist o-ave any man a right to act as a Pastor or Bishop. 

"But may it not be thouorht that the case now before us 
is different from all these? Undoubtedly in many respects it 
is Such a phenomenon has now appeared as has not ap- 
peared in the Christian world before, at least not for many 
ao-es. Two young men sowed the Word of God. not only m 
the Churches, buf likewise literally • by the highway side ; ' 
and indeed in every place where they saw an open door, 
where sinners had ears to hear. They were members of the 
Church of Eno;land. and had no design of separating from it. 
And they acbdsed all that were of it to continue therein, 



438 



APPENDICES. 



though they joined the Methodist society ; for this did not 
imply leaving their former congreo-ation, but only leavintr 
then- sins. Not long after, a young^ man. Thomas 'Maxfield 
ottered himself to serve them as a son in the Gospel And 
then another, Thomas Richards, and a little after a third 
Thomas Westell. Let it be well observed on what terms we 
received these, namely, as Prophets, not as Priests. We re- 
ceived them wholly and solely to preach, not to administer 
oacraments, 

"In 174-4 all the Methodist Preachers had their first Con- 
ference. But none of them dreamed that the beincT called to 
preach gave them any right to administer Sacraments. And 
when that question was proposed, ' In what light are we to 
consider ourselves?' it was answered. ^ As extraordinary 
messengers, raised up to provoke the ordinary ones to ieal- 
ously^ In order hereto, one of our first rules was given to 
each Preacher, ' You are to do that part of the work which we 
appoint.' But what work was this? Did we ever appoint 
you to administer Sacraments ; to exercise the Priestly office^ 
Such a design never entered into our mind ; it was the farthest 
from our thoughts. It was several years after our society was 
formed, before any attempt of this kind was made. The first 
was, I apprehend, at Norwich. One of our Preachers there 
j'lelded to the importunity of a few of the people, and baptized 
their children. But as soon as it was known, he was informed 
It must not be, unless he designed to leave our Connexion. 

" Now, as long as the Methodists keep to this plan, they 
cannot separate from the Church. And this is our peculiar 
glory. Methodists are not a sect or partv ; thev do not sepa- 
rate from the religious community to which they at first be- 
longed ; they are still members "^of the Church'; such they 
desire to live and to die. And I believe one reason why God 
IS pleased to continue my life so long is to confirm them in 
their present purpose, not to separate from the Church. 

" But, notwithstanding this, manv warm men sav. ' Nav. but 
you do separate from the Church.' ' Others are equallv warm, 
because they say I do not. I will nakedlv declare the thino- 
as it IS. I hold all the doctrines of the Churcli of England. I 
love her Liturgy. I approve her plan of discipline, and only 
wish It could be put in execution. I do not knowino-ly varV 
from any rule of the Church, unless in those few instances, 
where I judge, and as far as I judge, there is an absolute 



JOHN WESLEY ON THE MINISTERIAL OFFICE, 



439 



necessity. For instance (1) As few Clergymen open their 
Churches to me, I am under the necessity of preaching abroad. 
(2) As I know no forms that will suit all occasions, 1 am 
often under a necessity of praying extempore. (3) In order 
to build up the flock of Christ in faith and love, I am under a 
necessity of uniting them together, and of dividmg them into 
little companies, that they may provoke one another to love 
and ^ood works. (4) That my fellow-laborers and I may 
more effectually assist each other to save our own souls and 
those that hear us, I judge it necessary to meet the Preachers, 
or, at least, the greater part of them, once a year, (o) in 
those Conferences we fix the stations of all the Preachers for 
the ensuing year. But all this is not separating from the 
Church So far from it, that, whenever I have opportunity, 1 
attend the Church Service myself, and advise all our societies 

I °wish all of you who are vulgarly termed Methodists 
would seriously consider what has been said. And particu- 
larly you whom God hath commissioned to call sinners to 
repentance. It does by no means follow from hence, that ye 
are commissioned to Baptize, or to administer the Lord s bup- 
per Ye never dreamed of this for ten or twenty years after 
ye beo-an to preach. Ye did not then, like Korah, Dathan 
ind AWram, ' seek the Priesthood also.' Ye knew ' no man 
taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called ot brod, 
as was Aaron.' O contain yourselves within your own bounds; 
be content with preaching the Gospel; 'do the work of 
Evano-elists ;' proclaim to all the world the loving kindness ot 
God our Saviour ; declare to all 'The Kingdom of Heaven is 
at hand ; repent ye, and believe the Gospel !' I earnestly ad- 
vise you, abide in your place; keep your own station. Ye 
were at first called m the Church of England ; and though ye 
have and will have a thousand temptations to leave it and set 
up for yourselves, regard them not. Be Church-of -England 
men still ; do not cast away the peculiar glory which God hath 
put upon you, and frustrate the design of Providence, the 
very end for which God raised you up." 

The Rev. L. H. Wellesley Wesley, Rector of Hatchford, 
England, an aged and erudite descendant of the same family of 
whi^ch John and Charles Wesley were members, in an article 



440 



APPENDICES. 



recently published in The London Church Bells, is represented 
as insisting upon the fact that the founder of the original 
Methodist Societies was loyal to the Church of which he lived 
and died a member. "How," said he, "the Wesleyan minis- 
ters can call themselves 'Rev. 'and their chapels 'churches' 
in the teeth of John Wesley's teaching, I cannot understand. 
He always called the chapels 'preaching houses' and the 
ministers 'preachers.'" 



XIIL 

THE NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE 
YEARS' LEASE. 

Lecture IV; Page 228. 

n^HE statement of this passage having been called in ques- 
tion I wrote to the learned author of " The Continuity 
of the English Church through Eighteen Centuries," the Rev. 
A. E. Oldroyd, Vicar of Oundle, England, requesting him to 
be good enough to investigate the matter and let me know the 
result. In a letter bearing date June 8, 1896, he gives the 
following extracts from two of the answers to his inquiries : 

" ' St. Paul's Chapter, 9 Amen Court, London, E. C, Mar., 
18, 1896. I cannot tell what is intended by the passage which 
you cite. It can have no reference to Tillingham, for this was 
given to the Cathedral by Ethelbert, and has been in our pos- 
session ever since: one of the most interesting cases of contin- 
uous possession to be found. This is no case of a 999 years' 
lease, but a case of unbroken ownership from the days of 
Ethelbert who died, you will remember, in 616. Some estates 
m London, notably the Finsbury estate, have lately fallen in 
after a rather long lease, but not such a lease as that of which 
you speak.' 

" ' St. Nicholas Vicarage, Tillingham, Maldon, Essex, Mar. 
1896. The Manor together with the lands attached thereto 
granted by Ethelbert, King of Kent, who began to reign in 
565, to Mellitus who was consecrated Bishop of London by 



CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH PROVED. 



St Auo-nstine of Canterbury 604, for the endowment of his 
monastery of St. Paul in London, still remains the F^perty of 
the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. As Ethelbert died m 616 
this ffrant must have been made between 604 and bib, so that 
for nearly 1300 years the ownership has remained unchanged, 
a title continuous in one corporation probably unequaled m 
the country.' " 

" I have tried," says Mr. Oldroyd, " in various quarters, 
but the above is the best result of my investigations. If not 
the basis of the 999 years' lease paragraph, the Tillingham 
inheritance of St. Paul's Cathedral Chapter, London, is at any 
rate quite as strong on the continuity of the Church of 
England." 



XIV. 

CONTINUITY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH PROVED 
BY THE UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION 
OF HER BISHOPS. 

Lecture IV; Page 235. 

THERE were Bishops in England who carried on the 
canonical jurisdiction as well as the Apostolic Succes- 
sion through the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VL, Mary, 
and into the reign of Elizabeth. For example, Kitchin re- 
mained Bishop of Llandaff through all the changes from 
A.D., 1545 to the year 1563. But the point we wish to make 
is this : all the old English Sees are at this time occupied by 
Bishops who are the successors in unbroken continuity of all 
who have preceded them in those Sees back to the time of the 
first incumbent. This is not true of the Succession of any 
other religious body. The only one to which some might 
suppose this continuity appertained, the Roman Church, is 
entirely without it, for there is not a single Roman Bishop 
in England who has an Ecclesiastical predecessor in any 
Bishop of the English Church, either of the pre-Reformation 



442 



APPENDICES. 



or the post-Reformation period. The Roman Church in Eng- 
land of to-day laid its corner stone in a.d. 1570, and its 
Bishops and Priests have been imported in most cases from 
across the Channel, and when not thus derived, their Orders 
have come from thence. There is no succession of the Eng- 
lish Roman Catholic Hierarchy which goes back further than 
September 29, 1850, when Dr. Wiseman became the first 
Cardmal Archbishop of Westminster. We thus have (1) The 
identity of the pre-Reformation with the post -Reformation 
Church of England, for its Orders are unbroken from the 
begmmng to the present time. As Beard in his "Herbert 
Lectures " says, " It is an obvious historical fact that Parker 
was the successor of Augustine as clearly as Lanfranc and 
Becket." This being true of the first post-Reformation 
Archbishop of Canterbury, it is of course equally so of the 
present mcumbent. As for the other Sees no attempt has 
ever been made to raise a doubt as to whether an uninter- 
rupted succession has been maintained. On this point see 
"Spiritual Succession and Jurisdiction in England," by John 
W. Lea. (2) The Roman Church in England at present time 
IS a schismatic sect, dating from a.d. 1570, and has no iden- 
tity or organic connection with the Church of England before 
or after the Reformation. 

It must of course be granted that the corporate life of 
the Church of England,^ which, as we have shown conclusively, 
has existed without interruption from the Apostles, does not 
absolutely prove the spiritual identity of the post-Reforma- 
tion with the pre-Reformation Church. If, for illustration, 
the American Episcopal Church at the next General Conven- 
tion were to exchange the Bible for the Koran, to deny the 
doctrine of the Trinity, and adopt Mohammed as its supreme 
prophet, then, even, if not a man were changed there would 
be no spiritual identity between the Episcopal Church after 
the Convention of a.d. 1898 with that which had existed be- 
fore. But surely none will contend that anything of this 



THE ENGLISH CHURCH DID NOT SECEDE FROM ROME. 44d 

kind took place in the Church of England. No one un- 
doubted Catholic doctrine, practice or institution was abol- 
ished at the Reformation, nor were there any novel doctrines, 
practices or institutions imposed at that time or since. 



XV. 

THE ENGLISH CHURCH DID NOT SECEDE FROM ROME. 
Lecture IV; Page 250. 

ROMANISTS in England were enjoined by the Papal Bull 
of A. D. 1570 to withdraw from the Church of England. 
Many of the English Laity and some of the Clergy obeyed 
this summons and organized another religious body, separate 
and distinct from the English Church. This was a schismatic 
procedure by the Roman element, for it deliberately left the 
regular Church of England and formed a new body in opposi- 
tion thereto. Truth and justice require it to be made plain 
even at the risk of frequent reiteration that the first division of 
English Christians was effected by a few sympathizers with the 
Papacy in obedience to the mandate of Pius V. The English 
Catholics and patriots, now commonly called Churchmen or 
Episcopalians, continued on as usual without withdrawing 
themselves from any one. The vast majority of the inhabi- 
tants remained in the old Ecdesia Anglicana which still con- 
tinues and always will remain preeminently the Church of 
that country and our race. The following brief and accurate 
account of the beginning of the Roman schism in England 
is extracted from Palmer's Church History : " The accession 
of the illustrious Queen Elizabeth was followed by the restora- 
tion of the Church to its former state. The Clergy gener- 
ally approved of the return to pure religion, and retained 
their benefices, administering the Sacraments and rites ac- 
cording to the English Ritual. There was no schism for 
many years in Englayid, all the people worshipped in the 



444 



APPEN^DICES. 



scune Churches, and acknowledged the same pastors. At 
last, m 1569, Pius V. issued a bull, in which he excommuni- 
cated Queen Elizabeth and her supporters, absolved her sub- 
jects from their oaths of allegiance, and bestowed her domin- 
ions on the King of Spain. This bull caused the schism in 
England; for the Popish party, which had continued in 
communion with the Church of England up to that time, dur- 
ing the past eleven years of Elizabeth's reign, now began to 
separate themselves. Bedingfield, Cornwallis, and Silyarde 
were the first Popish recusants; and the date of the Romanists 
m England, as a distinct sect or community, may be fixed in 
the year 1570." 

Cardinal Manning was once of the opinion that the schism 
of A. D. '1570 did not proceed from the English King and 
Church, but from Rome, and as logical deductions from histor- 
ical facts do not vary with a change of Ecclesiastical relation- 
ship, his words are here quoted : " The Crown and Church of 
England with a steady opposition resisted the entrance and 
encroachment of the secularized Ecclesiastical power of the 
Pope in England. The last rejection of it was no more than 
a successful effort after many a failure in struggles of the like 
kind. And it was an act taken by men who were sound, 
according to the Roman doctrines, in all other points. There' 
is no one point in which the British Churches can be attainted 
of either heresy or schism. She, the Anglican Church, has 
rejected, what the Eastern Churches rejected before, the arro- 
gant^ pretense of a universal pontificate rashly alleged to be 
of Divine right, imposed in open breach of Apostolical tradi- 
tions and the canons of many councils. The Churches of the 
East are not schismatical for their rejection of this usurpation; 
neither are the Churches of Britain. But they are guilty of 
the schism that obtrude this novelty as the condition of Chris- 
tian communion." 



HAERIET BEECHER STOWE. 



445 



XVI. 

HARRIET BEECHER STOWE. 
Lectuee V; Page 296. 

THERE seems to be some room for dispute as to the 
Church relationship of Mrs. Stowe. The statements of 
this book, which were based upon what appeared to be trust- 
worthy testimony, having been called in question by an 
esteemed correspondent, an effort was made to ascertain the 
truth of the matter. After putting together all the facts that 
conveniently could be collected, it was concluded that what 
had been written might as well remain unaltered. For, while 
it appeared that she had never been confirmed and was during 
all her life nominally a Congregationalist, her attachment for 
and interest in the Episcopal Church were such as to lead peo- 
ple generally, and even members of her own family, to sup- 
pose that she was an Episcopalian in body as well as at heart. 
The following interesting passage from the "Reminiscences of 
Harriet Beecher Stowe," by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward, 
shows which way the wind blew as far back as her Andover 
life, A.D. 1852-64 : 

" I dimly suspected then, and I have been sure of it smce, 
that the privilege of neighborhood was but scantily appreciated 
in Andover, in the case of this eminent woman. Why, I do 
not know. She gave no offense, that I can recall, to the 
peculiar preferences of the place. The fact that she was 
rumored to have leanings towards the Episcopal Church did 
not prevent her from dutifully occupying with her family her 
husband's pew in the old chapel. It was far to the front, and 
her Ecclesiastical delinquencies would have been only too 
visible, had they existed. A tradition that she visited the 
theatre in Boston when she felt like it, sometimes passed 
solemnly from lip to lip; but this^is the most serious criticism 
upon her which I can remember." 



^"^^ ' APPENDICES. 



In the Life of Mrs. Stowe, edited by her son, the statement is 
made that she had joined the Protestant Episcopal Church 
some time before a. d. 1867. But the Clergyman who 
was the Rector of the little Parish at Mandarin, Florida 
her winter home, informs me that this cannot be true, because 
m the year 1882 she told him that she had not been confirmed 
and was thinking seriously of receiving the Apostolic Rite of 
the laymg on of hands. "Mrs. Stowe," says this Clergyman, 
who was her pastor for several years, "did not believe in 
Episcopacy as the only form of Church Polity, but she did be- 
lieve the Anglican Church to have the best system of worship 
and teaching. Her three daughters were all thorough Church- 
women." One of these in a letter bearing date September 
S, 1896, speaking of her mother's failure to come to Confir- 
mation, says: " Her reason for this she never told me, but I 
always supposed it was because of a feeling of loyalty and 
allegiance to her husband. I can say to you with full assur- 
ance of the truth of the statement, that at heart she was 
warmly and sincerely an ardent Episcopalian." In another 
letter she says: "From the time of the removal of my father 
and mother from Andover to Hartford in 1864, my mother 
attended regularly the Episcopal Church, going to the Com- 
munion as well. Trinity Church was the last Church she 
ever attended, and there she took her last Communion. That 
the Episcopal Church was the Church of her choice and her 
heart, there is in my mind no room for doubt." The Rev. 
Storrs O. Seymour, in a communication to the Ziving Church 
dated Litchfield, Connecticut, September 5, 1896, says: 
''While the Rev. Charles E. Stowe was pastor of the Windsor 
Avenue Congregational Church in Hartford, Conn., his mother 
generally attended the services of that Church. After his 
resignation she attended Trinity Church, frequently express- 
ing to the rector the satisfaction and pleasure which the 
Church Service afforded her. She was especially delig-hted 
with the vested choir." 



HAEETET BEECHEE STOWE. 



447 



Mrs. Sto^e ^as counted among the most deeply interested 
and active Cliurcli workers in the Diocese of Florida. In 
A. D. 1S66 she wrote to her brother, the Rev. Charles 
Beecher. a letter in which she says : -The Episcopal Church 
is undertaking, under direction of the future Bishop of Florida, 
a wide embracino- scheme of Christian activity for the whole 
State. In this work I desire to be associated."" In 1S67 she 
wrote to him another letter, as follows : -I am now in corre- 
spondence with the Bishop of Florida, with the view to 
establishino- a line of Churches along the line of the St. J ohn's 
river, and if I settle at Mandarin, it will be one of my sta- 
tions. Will you consent to enter the Episcopal Church, and 
be our Clero-yman? You are just the man we want. If my 
tasks and feelings did not incline me toward the Church. I 
should still choose it as the best system for training immature 
minds, such as those of our negroes. "" 

The winter of a. d. 1883-1884 was the last one spent by 
her at Mandarin, which, largely through her efforts, had 
been provided with a pretty Ihtle Episcopal Church, to which 
was attached a comfortable rectory. In January of that year 
she wrote \ " Mandarin looks very gay and airy now with its 
new villas and our new Church and rectory."" 

Upon one occasion, when consulted by some neighboring 
resorters. amono- whom were representatives of several bodies 
of Christians, about what had better be clone in regard to 
the establishment of religious services, Mrs. Stowe strongly 
recommended them to request the Bishop to send a Missionary 
to the community because, aside from the superiority of her 
Services, the Episcopal Church was the only one comprehen- 
sive enoug-h to include them all. 

It is believed that in view of the above showing, no rea^ 
sonable exception can be taken to the representation that the 
authoress of " Uncle Tom"s Cabin " was an Episcopalian. 

It may be observed by the way that Miss Catherine 
Beecher. Mrs. Stowe's elder sister, to whose excellent school 



448 



APPENDICES. 



she owed so much, was also a staunch EpiscopaHan. In some 
of her writings Miss Beecher expresses regret that her mother, 
after marriage, saw fit to leave the Episcopal Church and 
become a Presbyterian in order that she might be with her 
husband. She thought that the father sooner or later would 
have followed the mother into the Church, whose Liturgy and 
system of religious culture would have furnished the family 
with a much needed balance-wheel, and saved it from its 
checkered religious history. 

We agree with Miss Beecher that the idea of a wife being 
obliged to follow the husband in the matter of religious 
affiliation, ov vice versa, is all wrong from whatever point of 
view. As the well-instructed Episcopalian looks at it, no 
consideration will justify a person in leaving the Catholic 
Church of his race and country. And in the eyes of a con- 
sistent Denominationalist, division being a good thing, it 
ought to seem desirable or at least allowable that every mem- 
ber of a household should belong to a different body of 
Christians. 



XVIL 
HENRY CLAY. 
Lecture V; Page 299. 
"pHE following letter from the Rev. Dr. E. H. Ward, Rector 
of Christ Church, Lexington, Kentucky, was published in 
The Pacific Churchman of June 15, 1896. As the editor in 
his prefatory note remarks, it furnishes ground for the infer- 
ence that Mr. Clay might have used the remarkable language 
attributed to him, but does not establish the fact that he 
actually did make the statement quoted. However, it appears, 
by the mouth of two reliable witnesses, that the words were 
really expressive of his thought : 
"Editor of The Pacific Churchman: 

" Bishop Dudley some weeks ago referred to me a letter 



HENRY CLAY. 



449 



from , of , in regard to a quotation from Henry 

Clay. It was the one in which Mr. Clay said that his hope for 
the future of the United States was in the Supreme Court and 
the Episcopal Church. I have asked some of Mr. Clay's 
grandchildren about it, but they can give me no information 
upon the subject. 

" Judge Richard Buckner, who is now past four score, and 
before whom Mr. Clay often appeared as an advocate, is not 
able to locate the quotation ; but he said to me that it was so 
in line with Mr. Clay's thought that it might have been spoken 
at any time, and on almost any occasion. 

" The late Mr. James O. Harrison, who w^as at one time Mr. 
Clay's law partner, and who was also his executor, said to me 
essentially the same thing. So then if we cannot locate the 
saying, the testimony of these two gentlemen is sufficient to 
assure us that it was in keeping with Mr. Clay's thought, and 
so we have a right to use it. 

"As I have lost Mr. 's address, I take this method of 

answering his question, hoping that it may be of interest to 
others besides him. E. H. Ward." 

"Lexington, Ky., May 25, 1896." 

Upon reading this correspondence it occurred to me that 
it had grown out of the passage of this book indicated 
above. I had heard the statement made in an interesting 
address delivered by the Bishop of Delaware at the laying of the 
corner stone of St. Mary's Chapel, St. Mary's, Ohio, in the 
year 1889. After reading Dr. Waid's letter in The Pacific 
Churchman, I inquired of Bishop Coleman concerning the 
source of his information. In a letter bearing date, Bishop- 
stead, Wilmington, Delaware, July 3, 1896, he says : " I 
cannot now possibly give you my authority for the reported 
saying of Henry Clay. But I am still satisfied that the 
authority was such as made and makes me confident to repeat 
the statement. The Clergyman who baptized Henry Clay, 
and to whom it might be well for you to write, is the Rev. 
Edward F. Berkley, D.D., St. Louis, Missouri." In a con- 
versation with the Rev. Dr. Ward he told me that his letter 
to The Pacifix Churchman was in response to an inquiry 



450 



APPEXDICES. 



concerning the grounds for what was said about Mr. Clay in 
"The Church for Americans,"' and that he had heard the late 
Judge Sheffj in a speech at a General Convention of the 
Church make the same statement. The Doctor recrretted that 
in his letter he had not remembered to add this important 
testimony to that of Judge Buckner and Mr. Harrison. He 
thought it probable that the Bishop of Delaware had also 
either heard J udge Sheffy make the statement in question or 
read it in the Xeic York Churchman s report of the Con- 
vention. 

In accordance with Bishop Coleman's suggestion. I wrote to 
the Venerable Dr. Berkley, now in his eighty-third year, who 
replied in the following letter, which is a valuable contribution 
to the biography of one of the most prominent and interesting 
figures of American history : 

" Pittsburgh. Pa., July 15, 1896. 
Reverexd axd Dear Brother : 
" You ask a simple question about a sentiment attributed 
to Henry Clay. I give you the answer, but a statement from 
your book which you quote moves me to say somethino- 
about his religious character. You have referred to me for 
information about an expression of opinion on his part ' that 
the stability of our government depends upon the perpetua- 
tion of two institutions, to wit, the Episcopal Church, and 
the Supreme Court of the United States.' This is very like 
him, and he may have expressed this sentiment to others, but 
never to me. Although so much younger, as his Pastor, I 
was in intimate intercourse with him'^ for fourteen years of his 
life, from 1838 to the time of his death in 1852." He often 
spoke of the dignity and beauty of the Church Service, and of 
its adaptability to strengthen the struggling infirmities of a 
' poor sinner.' 

" This expression leads me to notice another statement 
made in your book, and which you quote in your letter, ' this 
great statesman and orator did not identify himself with any 
form of organized Christianity until late in'^life.' A religious 
vein ran through his nature, and more than once he said in a 
public speech, ' I am not a Christian, but I hope to ^ive evi- 
dence of my faith in the excellence and Divine authenticity of 



HENRY CLAY. 



451 



Cbristianitj before I die.' His family were Baptists, but I 
believe he felt a strong interest in the Church from his early 
life. 

" And here let me say even with the fear of wearying you 
by going so far aside from your letter, that he did not talk 
seriously of Baptism until he had taken leave of the Senate, 
and as he supposed retired from public life. He feared that 
if he made the sacred promises of Baptism, and the ordinances 
following, he might in his relations to public life do something 
that would compromise his Church and his profession. When 
he was seventy years old in June," 1847, I administered the 
Rite of Baptisitn"^to him and a daughter-in-law, with three or 
four of her children, in the parlor at i^shland, and not, as the 
Baptists proclaim to this day, 'in one of the beautiful ponds of 
Ashland.' I was familiar with the surroundings of that lovely 
country home, but I never saw any beautiful ponds. He came 
to the Communion on Sunday the Fourth of July after, and 
was confirmed by Bishop Smith within a week or two. 

" He was afterward sent back to the Senate, pending the 
then absorbing question of the Missouri Compromise, where 
his burdened mind and forensic efforts killed him. He died 
in Washington city on the fifth anniversary of his Baptism, 
June 28, 1852, and was consigned 'to earth, ashes and to 
dust' in Lexington Cemetery on the 10th of July. 

" To a Churchman I ought to say, that he was baptized in 
his house, because we were then building a Church, in which 
he manifested great personal interest, and I had no better 
place for the Service. 

" I could write much in detailing reminiscences of this 
w^onderful man, but if you have interest enough in this great 
character to endure what I have already said, I shall be 
gratified. I am cordially yours, 

"Rev. Wm. M. Beown." Ed. F. Berkley." 



452 



APPENDICES. 



XVIII. 

REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 
Lecture V ; Page 303. 

T HAVE learned recently to my great surprise that Reformed 
Episcopalians are often guilty of the grossest misrepre- 
sentations in their efforts to persuade our members and those 
who have their faces turned towards the old Catholic and His- 
toric Episcopal Church to identify themselves with the modern 
sect known as the "Reformed Episcopal Church." They say 
that the two Churches properly may be regarded as twin sisters ; 
so that by becoming a member of either of them a person con- 
nects himself with the great Church of the English speaking 
race. The distinguishing characteristics of these sister Churches 
are represented to be that the sympathies of her, who is denom- 
inated " Reformed Episcopal," are wholly with Protestantism, 
while those of the " Protestant Episcopal " are centered in Ro- 
manism. They commonly speak of their body as, "Low 
Church " and of ours as " High Church." 

Though I had heard from persons who seemed to know 
whereof they spoke, that these reprehensible tactics were being 
used by the Reformers, I could not believe that it was generally 
the case until assured of its truth by their members and publi- 
cations. Their senior and most distinguished Bishop, Dr. 
Cheney, of Chicago, speaking of the origin of the Reformed 
Episcopal Church, says : " The roots of the plant which has 
seemingly sprung up in the soil of the United States of Amer- 
ica and in the last third of the nineteenth century are imbedded 
in that fertile age, the Reformation of the sixteenth century. 
From that hour the Church of England rose to that place of 
influence which she has held through three hundred years. It 



REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 



453 



might have been justly said of her as of Rebecca of old, ' Two 
nations are in thy womb, two manner of people shall be sepa- 
rated from thy bowels.' " Again he compares the relationship 
of the body to which he belongs and the Episcopal Church to 
two chestnuts lying peacefully in the same bur ; but in a. d. 
1873 the shell burst and the chestnuts went in opposite direc- 
tions. Elsewhere he maintains that " in one sense this Church 
is not a new Communion, but the old Episcopal Church." In 
his sermon at the Consecration of Dr. Cheney, Bishop Cum- 
mins declared, " We claim to be the old and true Protestant 
Episcopalians of the days immediately succeeding the Amer- 
ican Revolution." 

The fallacy involved in this position would seem to be suf- 
ficiently obvious. It lies in the mistaking of a party in the 
Church for a coordinate branch of the Church. The analogy 
of Rebecca's twins is not quite apt, for, notwithstanding their 
differentiating characteristics, they were equally able to per- 
petuate a posterity of the same organic kind : whereas the 
conception of heretical doctrines and their promulgation by 
contentious and schismatical individuals is not a thing of the 
same kind as the continuity of organization. When certain 
members of the Low Church party separated themselves from 
the American branch of the Anglican Communion they sev- 
ered all connection with that body and organized a new body 
having no more continuity with the old than the society of 
Presbyterians, or Baptists, or Methodists. The fact that their 
secession was headed by a Bishop did not alter its character, 
for it was nevertheless a going out of individuals from a 
preexisting and continuous body. Dr. Cummins held his 
Bishopric solely for use in the Catholic Church and not 
outside of or against it. There was no preexisting organic 
unity between him and his followers making them in any 
sense a Church or a constituent part thereof sharing with her 
her inherent self-perpetuating power. They were simply an 
aggregation of persons who organized themselves into a body 



454 



APPENDICES. 



which hitherto had no corporate existence of any kind. This 
argument is equally applicable to Dr. Cheney's - chestnuts ! " 

We think that any one who will candidly investigate the 
subject in the light of history and Canon law canno^t escape 
the conviction that if an American would join the Catholic and 
Apostolic Church of our race, there is no way of doing so ex- 
cept by entering the Protestant Episcopal Church. Residents 
of the British Empire must unite with the Mother Church of 
England or one of her Colonial branches. By joining the Re- 
formed Episcopalians a person no more becomes a member 
of the Anglo-Catholic Communion than if he were to join the 
Methodist or Presbyterian body. There is in fact practically 
no essential difference between the Reformed Episcopal 
Church and the various sixteenth century and later Denomi- 
nations ; at least there is none which they admit. It might 
at first sight seem that this statement needs modification, 
so far as the ministry is concerned, for their Orders are traced 
to Bishop Cummins, who had been duly Consecrated a Bishop 
in the American branch of the Apostolic and Catholic Church 
of Christ. But, aside from the fact that his Consecration of 
Dr. Cheney was a schismatic and unlawful act. Bishop Cum- 
mins was afterwards Canonically deposed. It should also be 
remembered that Dr. Cummins was only the assistant Bishop 
of Kentucky, and as such he had no jurisdiction except what 
was delegated by his superior. He was expressly forbidden 
by his Diocesan, who was at the time also the executive head 
of the House of Bishops, to Consecrate Dr. Cheney. Never- 
theless he proceeded, and this in spite of the fact that in 
doing so he violated his Ordination vows which constitute one 
of the most solemn oaths which a man can take. If, therefore, 
the Reformers claim that they share the Historic Episcopal 
Succession with the Anglican Communion, we answer yes, but 
so far only as the mere laying on of hands is concerned ; you 
have no jurisdiction, and what you have would not be yours 
but for the perjury of him who gave it. His schism and 



REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 



455 



deposition historically and legally separated him from the 
Anglican Communion. If to this it be replied that the Church 
from which the American Episcopal body is sprung was also 
schismatic, we refer to Appendix XIV., which conclusively 
shows to the contrary. 

It is a curious fact that, though the " Reformed " body make 
a great deal of the Historic Episcopate when competing with 
Episcopalians for members, in their efforts to commend them- 
selves to non-Episcopalians, they deny that Episcopacy is a 
Divine institution, and that there is such a thing as Apostolic 
Succession. The action of their late General Council in for- 
bidding the reordination of Denominational ministers was, 
therefore, much more consistent than the stress which they put 
upon the Historic Episcopacy as a distinguishing feature 
'between them and other sectarians. If, for the sake of argu- 
ment, we admit — what would probably not be conceded 
by any great Canonist — that this body possesses a valid 
Historic Succession, it is, nevertheless, difficult to see how 
such of their congregations as are without an Episcopally or- 
dained Clergyman, and there are several of them, can derive 
any profit from the Succession. Paradoxical as it may seem, 
there are probably scores among the Reformed Episcopalians 
who have never received the Holy Communion at the hands of 
any minister who has received Episcopal Ordination. 

The Reformed Episcopalians are nothing more or less than 
Prayer Book Methodists. At a Methodist Conference held in 
Baltimore, Bishop Cummins declared that he and his followers 
were enveloped with a very thin Episcopal shell which only had 
to be broken to reveal the full fledged Methodist. They went 
out from us because we refused to revise our Liturgy so that 
its doctrine concerning the Ministry and Sacraments would 
conform with the ideas which prevail among Denomina- 
tionalists. It is very easily shown that the objections to the 
Episcopal Church which they made the basis of their schism 
apply quite as much to the Bible as to the Book of Commoq 



APPENDICES. 



Prajer. This will be apparent upon the mere mention of 
the passages in our Liturgy to which they took exception. 
Ihe Italicised words and phrases in the following quotations 
were their great stumbling-blocks: (1) "Receive the Holy 
Ghost for the office and work oll-riest in the Church of God " 
(2) "Hath given power and commandment to His ministers to 
declare and pronounce to His people being penitent the Abso- 
hctwn and remission, of their sins." (3) "Seeing now, dearly 
beloved, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body 
of Christ s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for 
these benefits." And "it has pleased Thee to regenerate this 
child with Thy Holy Spirit." (4) "Almighty and everliving 
God we most heartily thank Thee for that Thou dost vouchsafe 
to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with 
the spiritual food of the most precious Modg and £lood oi Thy 
Son our Saviour Jesus Christ." 

1. Great exception is taken to the word " Priest;" but it 
should be remembered that this is the general name for 
ministers of religion in all ages and countries. It occurs many 
times m the Old and New Testaments ; in the latter it is 
generally translated " Elder." That the Christian Church 
was to have Priests in the Old Testament sense appears both 
from prophecy and early history. Christ was "A Priest for 
ever after the order of Melohizedek." The word "order" 
implies more than one, a succession. The Church of Christ 
therefore, has a succession of Priests of which He is the Head 
We have the writings of some of the immediate successors of 
the Apostles, such, for example, as the epistles of Ignatius, 
A. D. 107 and Polycarp, a. d. 108, in which the Ministry of 
tlie Christian Church is represented as constituted of Bishops 
Priests and Deacons. I turn to the short letter of the Martyr 
Ignatius, written to the Magnesians, and find that the word 
"Priest" in its uncontracted form. Presbyter, occurs at least 
nve times. 

2, It is also verj certain that the Prajer Book has no more 



REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS. 



457 



to say about Ministerial Absolution than the Bible. Christ said 
to the Apostles, and through them to their successors and dele- 
gates: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." 

3. The Prayer Book doctrine of Regeneration furnishes the 
Reformers their greatest pretext for schism. But our Lord said : 
" Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot 
enter into the Kingdom of God." Much confusion arises from the 
failure of Methodists and Reformed Episcopalians to distinguish 
birth from the beginning of life. These are by no means the 
same thing. In fact birth presupposes the existence of life ; 
it is therefore the transition from one state of existence to 
another. This is also true of the regeneration or new birth 
which Catholic Christians in all ages have connected with Holy 
Baptism. The recipient of the Sacrament is thereby trans- 
ferred from the natural relation established by creation to the 
covenant relation established by adoption. The change in the 
spiritual life of an infant is somewhat as the natural birth is to 
the physical life. Baptism is therefore properly called the new 
birth, and the Reformers in making and maintaining a schism 
chiefly because of our Prayer Book doctrine concerning Re- 
generation disregard both Scripture and reason. 

4. The teaching of our Liturgy regarding the spiritual re- 
ception of Christ in the Bread and Wine of the Holy Com- 
munion is also eminently Scriptural. For, on the night in 
which He was betrayed, " Jesus took bread and blessed it and 
brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said. Take, eat, this is 
My Body. And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it 
to them, saying. Drink ye all of it for this is My Blood of the 
New Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of 
sins." The Reformed Episcopalians are very much like those 
Jews who strove among themselves saying, "How can this 
man give us His Flesh to eat;" but Jesus said unto them, 
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the 
Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no life in you. 



APPENDICES. 



Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal 
life, and I will raise him up at the last day, for My Flesh is meat 
indeed and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My Flesh 
and drinketh My Blood dwelleth in Me and I in him. As the 
hvmg Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that 
eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. This is the Bread which 
came down from Heaven : not as your fathers did eat manna, 
and are dead : he that eateth of this Bread shall live forever " 
And St. Paul says, - The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it 
not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which 
we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? " 

The Princess Elizabeth's famous reply to her Theological 
inquisitors is true of the old Prayer Book of our Catholic and 
Apostolic Church, not only so far as its doctrine concerning the 
Holy Communion is concerned, but likewise, in principle of 
all essential points in which the Reformers and other De- 
nominationalists depart from it. 

. " Christ is the Word that spake it, 
He took the hread and hrake it, 
And what the Word did make it. 
That I believe and take it." 

The Rev. Dr. Wm. C. Hopkins, of Toledo, heard Dr 
Newton, of Philadelphia, a leader of the Low Church party 
say, m a public address, that Bishop Cummins had expressed 
to him deep regret for starting the Reformed Episcopal 
Church, and acknowledged that his doing so was a great 
mistake. Many other low Churchmen in refusing to follow 
his lead said that all that the Reformed Episcopal Church 
affirmed was already abundantly affirmed by the old Church 
and all that was denied is already abundantly denied by 
the Denominations ; so that no new organization was needed 
for either the affirmative or negative. They said also that 
the old Church already allowed all the liberty of opinion 
that the lowest Churchman could ask, in proof of which 
they called attention to the fact that for years many of 



EXTEMPOKE PRAYER AND EXPERIENCE MEETINGS. 459 



them had freely denied Apostolic Succession and Baptismal 
Regeneration, and yet continued their ministry without let or 
hindrance. So that this was the most causeless of all the 
schisms, and ought to be the first to be healed, and we look 
forward with hope to the day when the little band of separated 
brethren will return to the fold, and of them and us there shall 
be, indeed, " one fold and one Shepherd." 

XIX. 

EXTEMPORE PRAYER AND EXPERIENCE MEETINGS. 
Lecture VI; Page 321. 

THERE are many who have derived a great deal of blessing 
and support from the Prayer and Experience Meetings. 
Not a few of these are almost if not quite persuaded that, 
being English speaking people, they ought to be in commun- 
ion with the Historic Catholic Church of their race. But they 
hesitate in transferring their allegiance because they fear that 
her Liturgical Services would not meet their spiritual wants. 
Such will be glad to know that there is no law to prevent 
Episcopalians from meeting together to join in extempore 
prayer and to strengthen themselves and encourage one 
another by the relation of their religious experience. The 
regular Services of the Church are of course stereotyped, but 
they are scarcely more so than those of the various non-litur- 
gical Denominations. So far as general public worship 
is concerned it does not in any body of Christians take the 
place of the Prayer and Experience Meeting. There is, how- 
ever, no Denomination in which it comes so nearly doing so as 
in the Episcopal Church. The Laity take more part in our 
regular Sunday services than they do in those of any other 
religious body. They confess their shortcomings and sins; 
pray for forgiveness and help ; make a profession of Christ ; 
and, in the Psalter, even tell their religious experience. True 



APPENDICES. 

they do this by conforming to the postures and joining their 
vo,ces w,th the rest of the congregation, but we truft that 
the prayers, confessions, professions and experiences which 
Episcopalians say in concert, are no less helpful than those 
of the hymns which all Christians are accustomed to sing 
together. & 

It is true that taking part in precomposed Services does 
not afford so much of an opportunity to individuals of taking 
up their cross but what is lost in this respect is more thaf 
compensated for by the removal of a stumbling-block which 
accounts for a large element in our non church member popu- 
lation. So much importance has been attached to the class 
meeting that taking part in it has come popularly to be 
regarded as a prerequisite to Church membership in good 
standing, and the degree of spirituality is judged of by the 
ability to pray and talk in public. ^i every^oongreglt on 

>h Tt " overestimated, Ibecaufe ff the 

ease with which they meet these requirements ; while that of 
others IS unjustifiably discounted, owing to the lack of fluency 
and self-assertion which puts them at a disadvantage. The 
representatives of the latter of these classes who In many 
cases exhibit the choicest fruits of Christianity, regard the 
cross which they are called upon to take up'ls bfing tl 
h avy for them to bear. The great majority'of these lould 
gladly make use of the means of grace which Christ and the 
Apostles instituted for their admittance to the Church and 
upbuilding m righteousness, but they cannot meet the require- 
ments of say, John Wesley and his followers, and so to the r 
regret they feel that they must remain unaffiliated with y 

oi the English speaking race the place for them. 

the h" IT* ''■'f"" Communion does not put a yoke upon 
the humble and shrinking which they are not able to bear 
Baptism, of which Confirmation is the completion, and the Holy 
Communion, are the Gospel ordinances for the confession of 



VESTMENTS A LAYMAN ON. 



461 



Christ. The reception of these upon the simple conditions 
imposed in all ages by the Catholic Church, namely, a public 
promise by God's help to renounce the Devil and all his 
works ; to believe all the articles of the Apostles' Creed ; and 
to keep God's holy will and Commandments, is all that any 
person or society has a right to require of those who desire 
to identify themselves with the Savior and His Kingdom. 

But if there be any Episcopalian who finds that the regular 
institutions and worship of his Church do not meet his spirit- 
ual needs, he is at perfect liberty to resort to extemporary 
prayer. And if the use of it in his closet and the relation of 
his experience in private conversation with his household and 
particular friends will not suffice, ^there is no reason why he 
should not organize a class of any who sympathize with him. 
This is what John Wesley did. In view of this representation, 
w^e trust that none who are convinced of this Church's superior 
claims to their allegiance will hesitate to identify themselves 
with her, because her regular public worship is liturgical. 

XX. 

VESTMENTS — A LAY3IAN ON. 
Lectuee YI; Page 324. 

AFTER reading the section concerning the use of Eccle- 
siastical Vestments a thoughtful Layman was good 
enough to give me the following excellent criticism: 

" You micrht have added that the vestments form not only 
a fitting attire, placing the Clergyman in harmony with the 
underlying spirit of the Service, but they also ' conceal the 
varying fashions of men' and are a great protection to the 
Laity against the personal kinks of their Rector. The latter 
may wear a sack or a dress coat, but whichever it is the over- 
lying cassock and surplice hide it. If — as a minister in a 
religious body not Episcopal was said to have done — he comes 
into the Church with his pants tucked into the top of boots, 



462 



APPENDICES. 



the fact that he does this is not manifest ; but, in the case inst 

respect for tHe dignit, of VZ.'X'JIl ZTlT^^^Z 
of the S''°"*'""'*'^°"* ^'-'^^P-^-g "P- "berty 



XXI. 

DANCING, CARD PLAYING AND THEATRE GOING. 
Leotuee VI ; Page 326. 
a Mission held in one of the county-seats of the Diocese 

A. ' ' '^"'^ ^^"'^ "'^^ly established 

the Missioner encouraged the people to ask questions about 
points concerning which they would like to know more Free 
dom of inquiry was secured by the placing of a box near the 
door into which unsigned questions might be deposited. One 
evening, among other inquiries, it contained this: "You say 
that m order to become a member of the Episcopal Church a 
person has to 'Renounce the Devil and all his works the 
pomps and vanity of this wicked world and all the sinful 'lusts 
of the flesh. Query: Does dancing, card playing and the- 
atre going fall under any of these heads? If so, why are not 
Episcopalians who indulge in them excommunicated * " 
• '^r'"' community silenced much cavil- 

ing at the Church, the Missioner, as nearly as I can remember, 
said : I confess to a little surprise at this question. Indeed 
It It were not for some things which have come to the surface 
m the course of certain conversations which I have had since 
my coming among you, I could hardly believe that it is asked in 
the right sp^it. To one raised as I have been it seems almost 
ncredible that any one should seriously contend that pro- 
fessing Christians who participate in these amusements merit 
the extreme penalty of excommunication. But in view of 



DANCING, CARD PLAYING AND THEATRE GOING. 463 

what I have heard, there seems to be a necessity for treating 
this inquiry with the same respect that others which appeared 
more reasonable received. 

"People are so constituted that they must have a little 
recreation. There is a proverb to the effect that all work and 
no play, if long continued, will inevitably have a bad effect 
upon both body and mind. The universal recognition of this 
accounts for the fact that no body of Christians forbids all 
diversions to its adherents. The only difference therefore be- 
tween Episcopalians and their criticisers is in the matter of 
regulation. One resorts to legislation, while the other leaves 
it to the conscience of its members. 

" The Episcopal Church of course expects all her adherents 
to keep their Baptismal vows. But so far as adults are con- 
cerned she treats them as men and women, and not like 
children, and so she allows them to determine for themselves 
what are to be included among the things which they have 
promised to renounce. As for the boys and girls she leaves 
their parents and spiritual masters and teachers to determine 
what amusements they shall enjoy. 

" Now where such liberty of conscience is allowed there is 
of course always more or less of diversity in opinion and prac- 
tice. This accounts for the fact that there are Episcopalians 
who from conscientious scruples do not dance, play cards or 
attend theatres. Some of our ministers openly discourage 
these things, and even those who see no harm in them strongly 
recommend moderation. However, they also do this in re- 
spect to all amusements which are likely to absorb too much 
time and attention. 

" The character of one's amusements when he is at liberty to 
choose for himself, is largely a matter of taste. I am sorry to 
say that my parents were not professing Christians and that I 
was not a Church member until after I had reached the estate 
of manhood. I therefore felt perfectly free to dance, play 
cards or attend the circus — there was no theatre or opera in 



464 

APPENDICES. 



the town near the rural community where I lived. I also fre- 
quented the inevitable Church social and joined without com- 
punction of conscience in the various romping and kissino- 
games. I will not say that I did not enjoy them, but I always 
contended, and I have not up to date seen any reason to 
change my mind, that if I had a sister I should rather have 
her go to a select dancing party or the circus-opera much 
preferred if there be any-than to attend the old time Church 
social or mite society. 

" If some of the Churches which expressly prohibit dancin^., 
card playing and theatre going were to excommunicate all 
those of their membership who disregard the law. there would 
be many empty pews in their places of worship. The mem- 
bers of the Episcopal Church are by no means the only pro- 
fessing Christians who take part in the amusements against 
which the writer of the question seems to be so deeply 
prejudiced. In fact I have often observed that the various 
bodies of Christians are generally pretty evenly represented 
at such parties and entertainments, and that Episcopalians are 
not always the ones who are most carried away by them On 
the contrary, the conduct of those who do these things regard- 
ess of the regulations of the Denomination to which they be- 
ong, often furnishes an illustration of the truth of the prover- 
bial saying, ' Stolen waters are sweeter than any other ' " 



XXII. 

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH THE CHVSCH OF THE POCK 

Lectuhe VI; Page 830. 
"JpHIS is the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Jackson, the elc 
quent and candid Pastor of the Wesleyan Chapel. Cc 
lumbus, Ohio. 

"If time permitted I would like to speak at leno-th i 
praise of the work of the Episcopal Church among the'^poo. 



THE CHURCH OF THE POOE. 



465 



Although that Communion has perhaps the highest percentage 
of wealth per member of any Church in this country, yet the 
poor have they always with them. To the solution of the 
problems of poverty they have given much of their best thought 
and energy. Although numerically among the smallest, yet 
they lead among the Protestant Churches of America in the 
erection of hospitals, the foundation of charities, and in the 
organization of various sisterhoods, guilds, brotherhoods and the 
like, for the alleviation of human distress. Their Parish and 
Cathedral system for our o-reat cities, with their Parish Houses, 
is the only sensible and practical plan yet devised for bringing 
the whole force of the Church to bear for the relief of our over- 
crowded tenement house population. The Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, while theoretically the best organized, next to 
the Catholics, for united attack upon the evils of our great 
cities, is yet, practically, owing to our compulsory system of 
pastoral change by the almanac, and the ruinous competi- 
tion encouraged between our congregations, weakly and 
criminally negligent and utterly inefficient." 

The custom of fashionable dressing in all the churches " 
has done more than anything else to exclude the poor from 
public worship, but this is the misfortune of all Denominations 
alike, and its correction is a problem only partially solved 
by our various City Missions. One thing is certain that all 
respectable poor people faithfully attending the Episcopal 
Church are sure of a warm and permanent welcome. 

"Our Mother, the Church, hath never a child 

To honor before the rest. 
And she singeth the same for mighty kings 

And the veriest babe on her breast ; 
And the Bishop goes down to his narrow bed 

As the ploughman's child is laid. 
And alike she blesseth the dark-brow'd serf. 

And the chief in his robe arrayed. 
She sprinkles the drops of the bright new-birth, 

The same on the low and high. 
And christens their bodies with dust to dust, 

When earth with its earth must lie." 

C. A.— 30 



466 



APPEXDICES. 



XXIII. 

FERMENTED COMMUNION WINE, OBIECTION 
TO, CONSIDERED. 

Lectuee YII; Page 355. 

O IX CE the publication of the First Edition of this book. I 
have met with some excellent people who, after connect- 
ing themselves with a newly organized Mission, had compunc- 
tion of conscience about coming to the Holy Communion 
because the Church requires fermented wine to be used in its 
administration. This led to considerable conversation and 
inquiry, which convinced me that the law regulating this 
matter is a stumbling-block to many whose total abstinence 
pledge forbids them the use of wine except for medicinal pur- 
poses. There are doubtless some of these in almost every 
community. In view of the gigantic evils growing out of the 
use of alcoholic drinks, those who do what they can'to stem the 
tide of degradation and sorrow by observing the precept to 
"touch not, taste not" and -handle not," and bj inducing 
others to follow their example, must command the profound 
respect of all thoughtful men and women. Can such receive 
the Holy Communion in the Episcopal Church without doing 
violence to their noble conscientious scruples? It would be 
a matter for great regret if this question could not be satis, 
factorily answered in the affirmative. How then can any onb 
who is pledged to total abstinence justify himself in receiving 
the Holy Communion in a Church that ^uses fermented wine 
and does not permit anything else to be substituted? 

In our answer to this question we would call attention to 
the fact that those who have signed total abstinence pledges 
generally feel at liberty to use wine or even pure alcohol for 



FERMENTED COMMUNION WINE. 467 

medicinal purposes. And surely if the pledge may be set 
aside by a human physician's prescription in the case of bodily 
sickness, it may be done by the prescription of the Divine 
Physician for our spiritual illness. But, it will be asked, did 
our Lord prescribe fermented wine by using it at the institu- 
tion of the Holy Communion on the night of His betrayal ? 
We think that there can be no reasonable doubt that He did. 

In the General Convention of a. d. 1886, the House of 
Bishops passed a resolution declaring that the use of unfer- 
mented wine was " unwarranted by the example of our Lord, 
and contrary to the custom of the Catholic Church." The 
Lambeth Conference of a. d. 1888 more strongly affirmed the 
same position in the following resolution : " That the Bishops 
assembled in this conference declare that the use of unfer- 
mented juice of the grape or any other liquid other than true 
Wine diluted or undiluted, as the element in the Administra- 
tion of the Cup in Holy Communion, is unwarranted by the 
example of our Lord and is an unauthorized departure from 
the custom of the Catholic Church." 

In an editorial on the first Lord's Supper The Congrega- 
tionalist thus admirably sums up the reasons why we must 
accept it as a fact that the wine used was fermented: 

" The Jews had no scientific knowledge intimating the 
fermentation of bread and wine to be identical. The Jerusa- 
lem Talmud distinctly orders the Passover service to be cele- 
brated with red wine, which is necessarily fermented. The 
Talmud limited the quantity to such a degree as clearly to 
show the prevention of drunkenness to be the object. Vinegar 
was used at the Passover table, showing that vinous fermenta- 
tion w^as not prohibited. To this may be added the opinions 
of Dr. Edersheim, a Christian of Jewish lineage and an emi- 
nent graduate of Oxford, singularly familiar with the Tal- 
muds and the entire Hebrew literature, who says : ' The 
contention that this was unfermented wine is not worth dis- 
cussion.' All the testimony of the most eminent Jewish 
Rabbis of our day is also in this direction." 

Those who have total abstinence vows resting" upon them 



468 



APPENDICES. 



may therefore come to the Lord's Supper in the Episcopal 
Church, because in doing so they will be rendering obedi- 
ence to the Great Physician of their souls. As the late Bishop 
of Pennsylvania said to one who hesitated, because of a 
pledge, to receive the Communion, and sought his Godly 
advice and counsel: "Our Blessed Lord used the ordinary 
wine of the country at the institution of the Lord's Supper. 
In His Divine omniscience He looked through all the future, 
and saw every possible consequence of such an act. Yet He' 
deliberately chose the 1 blood of the grape,' when He would 
symbolize the Blood of the Cross, and, in His infinite wisdom, 
which can do no wrong, ordained that it should be used in all 
places and ages, and among all conditions of men as the one 
Divine way of celebrating the Lord's Supper. To hesitate 
at taking a small sip of wine from the Chalice, because it is 
used by others for intoxicating purposes, is to reflect on our 
Blessed Lord's wisdom and goodness and love and purity, and 
to afPect to be purer and holier than He. The Lord Jesus, if 
you take the wine in His strength and at His command, 
will keep you from an evil consequence to yourself and others; 
whereas, disobedience to His command dishonors Him, insults 
Him; sets up your judgment against His, and will put your 
own self-will above the positive command 'drink ye all of 
this.' " 

One of the persons with whom I conversed about this 
matter argued that it was wrong to use fermented wine, 
because newly converted men who had fallen into the drinking 
habit would have their almost irresistible cravings for intoxi^ 
cants revived by .the taste of it. But I happened to be able 
to cite an instance from my own pastoral experience which 
goes to show that there is not much in this. He was an attrac- 
tive young man, for whom his parents and lovely wife had a 
great deal of anxiety. After much hesitancy due to fear that 
he would bring reproach to the Church, he finally yielded 
to the persuasion of one of his companions who was a Church- 



THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 



469 



man and was confirmed. There were some misgivings about 
the result of his coming to the Holy Communion, but it did not 
occur to me or to any one else to use unfermented grape 
juice or some other substitute for wine. The friend who in- 
duced him to come into the Church afterwards asked him 
whether he thought that there was any danger connected with 
the taking of the Sacramental wine, to which he confidently 
replied, no. He then went on to explain why he had no fear. 
In the first place, he went to the Altar for help to enable 
him to overcome his besetting sin and he did not go in vain. 
Moreover, there was scarcely any resemblance in taste between 
the light diluted wine received from the Chalice and the 
strong drink which overcame him,- for the latter contained a 
large percentage of alcohol, while the former has almost none 
at all. 



XXIV. 

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE 
FAITH OF ITS SIGNERS. 

Lecture VII ; Page 378. 

SIGNERS of the Declaration of Independence : 
New Hampshire — Josiah Bartlett, Congregation- 
alist ; William H. Whipple, Congregationalist ; Matthew 
Thornton, Congregationalist. 

Massachusetts— John Hancock, Congregationalist; John 
Adams, Congregationalist ; Samuel Adams, Congregationalist; 
Robert Treat Paine, Congregationalist; Elbridge Gerry, 

Episcopalian. ^-rr.,i. -r^n 

Rhode Island — Stephen Hopkins, Quaker; William Ellery, 

Congregationalist. 

Connecticut — Roger Sherman, Congregationalist ; Samuel 
Huntington, Congregationalist; William Williams, Congre- 
gationalist ; Oliver Wolcott, Congregationalist. 

New York— William Floyd, Presbyterian; Philip Liv- 
ingstone, Episcopalian ; Francis Lewis, Episcopalian ; Lewis 
Morris, Episcopalian. 



470 

APPENDICES. 



IS ew Jersey -Richard Stockton, Quaker ; John Wither 
spoon Presbyterian; Francis Hopkinson, Epi^copSan John 
Hart. Baptist ; Abraham Clark. Presbyterian^ scopalian , John 
^J'^^^'-^^f. -Robert Morris, Episcopalian; Beniamin 
Rush, Episcopahaoi ; Ben amin Franklin, Episcopalian jZ 
Morton, Episcopalian; George Clymer, Episcopalian James 

W^t r^^'^T'' '^'y'"'' Eilscop^alian V Jam 

^^ ilson, Episcopalian ; George Ross. Episcopalian. 

Delaware -C»sar Rodney, Episcopalian; George Read 
Episcopalian ; Thomas McKean, Presbyterian ^ ' 

Mary and -Samuel Chase. Episcopalian: Thomas Stone 
te'ttiir"'^"^ ^^^"^ Episcopa^lian; Charles Carroll,' 

T,7t'8™'*-.^'^°''gt Wy^^'Epi-scopalian: Richard Henry 
Lee, Episcopalian; Thomas Jefferson, Episcopalian ; Benia^ 
mm Harrison Episcopalian ; Thomas I^elson, Jr.. Episco- 

CropfliaT^ ^'--P^«-^ Carter Bra'^Z, 

North Carolina.— William Hooper, Episcopalian- Josenh 

Hewes, Episcopalian; John Penn, E'pis;opilian.'^ ' ^ 
South Carolina.- Edward Rutledge, Episcopalian; Thomas 

Signatures were aiBxed to the Declaration on July 4 and 
August 2, 1776. Several members of Congress who voted 
for. or while present strongly favored the Declaration did not 
.or one or another good reason, have an opportunity of signing 
It. Among such there were five Congregationalists, one 
Presbyterian, one Dutch Reformed, one Quaker and thirteen 
Episcopalians. The members of the Episcopal Church of 
whom this is true are: John Alsop, John Jay, James Duane, 
Robert R. Livingston, Jr., Henry Wisner. Edward Biddle, 
Thomas Willing, Robert Goldsborough, John Hall, Matthew 
Ti ghman, Thomas Johnson, Jr., John Rutledge and Archi- 
bald Bullock. 

In view of this showing and that of Appendix VL, pa^e 
It IS surpassingly strange that Congregationalists, on the 



PEEPETUITY. 



471 



one hand, and on the other. Romanists, try to make it appear 
that the credit of laying the foundations of our Independence 
and Republican Government is due chiefly to their sons.^ But, 
surely, if the representatives of either of these bodies of 
Christians had any ground for their pretension, Episcopalians 
would not have predominated so greatly among the makers 
and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Con- 
stitution of the United States. The first of these instruments 
was signed by twelve Congregationalists and one Roman 
Catholic, and the second by five Congregationalists and two 
Roman Catholics. But thirty-six Episcopalians had the im- 
perishable honor of subscribing their names to the first of these 
documents and twenty-seven to the second. 

As of late years Romanists have been making such 
astounding claims, we are justified in going a little out of our 
way to call especial attention to a fact which must be humili- 
ating to them, namely, that Charles Carroll, the only one of 
their faith whose name appears among the signers of the 
Declaration of Independence, was a pew renter and an at- 
tendant of the Episcopal Church. 



XXV. 

PERPETUITY: AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR BEING AN 
EPISCOPALIAN. 

Lecti-ee VII ; Page 386. 

ONE of the considerations which will induce many to iden- 
tify themselves with the Episcopal Church rather than 
with any other body of Protestant Christians, grows out of the 
fact that the long continuance and present condition of this 
Church are a guarantee of her perpetuity. There is a strong de- 
sire on the part of most thoughtful men to ally themselves with 
the permanent and to avoid the ephemeral. The Scriptural 
proverb "no man also having drunk old wine straightway 



472 



APPENDICES. 



desireth new, for he saith the old is better" expresses a deep- 
rooted and far-reaching instinct, which as time goes on will 
tell more and more upon the growth of the Episcopal Church 
Of two or more institutions claiming the allegiance of men and 
women, the one which gives the greatest promise of durability 
will, other things being equal, in the long run gam the day. 
In view of what has been said in other connections it cannot 
be denied that the Episcopal Church is at least as Scriptural, 
as pure and as useful as any other Christian body. This 
being the case, if she can be shown to be more enduring than 
her rivals, that, in itself, will, in the case of multitudes, settle 
the question touching the superior claims of allegiance. 

Now the very fact that this Church has existed for eigh- 
teen hundred years, certainly proves that she has marvelous 
qualities of endurance. Nor does she yet show the slightest 
signs of decay. On the contrary she never was more vigorous 
m every part of the English speaking world than at this time 
Those who identify themselves with the American branch of 
this Communion will therefore be morally certain that their 
influence and work and gifts will go towards the upbuilding 
of an institution which will continue as long at least as the 
English civilization lasts. It may be that some of the other 
Protestant bodies will also continue through many centuries 
to come, but the history of sectarianism is against the proba- 
bility of any of them doing so. 

Of all the sects that arose in the course of the first one 
thousand years of the Christian Dispensation, none has survived. 
If Arianism, the greatest of them all, may be said to be an ex- 
ception, its feeble condition as seen in the Unitarian body 
will afford no encouragement for hope that the Denomi- 
nations which have sprung up since the Reformation, though 
they be ever so flourishing at this time, will be in existence 
three hundred years hence. Where are the sects that made 
such a stir in pre-Reformation times, the Donatists, the Nova- 
tians, the Arians, the Cathari? If these have all long since 



CHIEF BODIES OF PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS. 473 



died out, what guarantee of perpetuity can any post-Reforma- 
tion Denomination offer ? Many of them have had their little 
day already, and not a few others have not much more than a 
name to live. Even the most flourishing among them are 
comparatively no more so than some of the early sects. Their 
growth has not been any more rapid or substantial. 

There is therefore no reason why the history of the pre-Re- 
formation sects should not repeat itself in those of the post-Re- 
formation period. The probabilities are entirely on the side 
of the conclusion that at the end of the next four or five hun- 
dred years Lutheranism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, 
Baptistism and Methodism will be things of the past. But 
while this in the light of history is the outlook of sectarianism, 
the prospects are that the Historic Church of the English 
speaking race will, as the centuries come and go, grow more 
powerful and useful until her children shall be in numbers as 
the sand by the seaside, for multitude, and her blessing shall 
cover the whole earth. 

Thus, if Americans choose their Church relationship with 
reference to the probabilities of perpetuity, there is nothing for 
them to do but to become Episcopalians. 

XXVI . 

NEW YORK STATISTICS OF THE CHIEF BODIES OF 
PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS IN 1895. 

Lecture VII ; Page 393. 

Disciples 

Evangelical 

United Presbyterian 
Congregationalists , . 

Reformed 

Lutheran 

Methodist 

Baptist 

Presbyterian 

Episcopalian 



498 
800 
900 
2,763 
8,936 
11,632 
14,657 
15,110 
22,813 
43,689 



474 



APPENDICES. 



These figures are furnished by the New York city 
Mission Monthly, a Presbyterian publication. The following 
is its comment : 

"It will be noticed that the Episcopalians far outnumber 
any other denomination in their membership. Their relative 
growth also surpasses all others. In a. d. 1878 the Presbyterian 
member^ip in this city was 17,704, while the Episcopalian 
was ^U,y84. Now the Episcopalians almost double the Pres- 
byterians m the matter of Church membership." 



XXVII. 

STATISTICS OF ENGLISH SPEAKING BODIES OF 
CHRISTIANS IN THE WORLD. 

Lecture VII ; Page 396. 

^HE following estimates by M. Fournier de Flaix, pub- 
lished in the "Quarterly of the American Statistical 
Association" of March, 1892, are the latest that have been 
made by a competent authority : 



Episcopalians 28,500,000 

Methodists of all descriptions 18,250,000 

Roman Catholics 15,250,000 

Presbyterians of all descriptions 11,175^000 

Baptists of all descriptions 9,000 000 

Congregationalists 6,000'000 

Free Thinkers.. 4,500,000 

Lutherans . 2,000,000 

Unitarians 2,500,000 

Minor Religious Sects 5,000,000 

Of no particular religion 15,000 ,000 



English speaking population 117,175,000 



The overshadowing preponderance of Episcopalians in the 
English speaking world will appear still plainer when it is 
remembered that she is one great, closely-knit Communion, 
while the various other bodies, except the Roman Catholics, 
are broken up into many rival sects. For example, there are in 
America alone seventeen Denominations of Methodists, which 



ENGLISH SPEAKING CHRISTIANS IN THE WOELD. 475 

to all practical purposes are as separate and distinct from each 
other as Congregationalists and Baptists. The largest by far 
of these Wesleyan bodies reports a membership of less than 
two millions. It is therefore very misleading, when compar- 
ing the Anglican Communion with the followers of Wesley, 
to say that the former has twenty-eight million five hundred 
thousand, and the latter eighteen million two hundred and 
fifty thousand. The same is quite as true of Presbyterianism. 
So far as numbers are concerned, the Romanists really come 
much nearer to us than any of the Protestant Denominations, 
but even they are numerically not much more than half as 
strong; while in other elements of strength, such as social, 
political, and commercial influence, they fall behind much 
further. 

Moreover, there is no probability that either Romanism or 
Denominationalism will ever overshadow the Historic Catholic 
Church of our race. There have been periods since the 
Reformation when it seemed as if there were ground for fear 
first that the one and then the other might do so ; but this is 
far from being the case now. The great Anglican Com- 
munion is rapidly recovering from the prostrate and pitiable 
condition to which she was brought by the cooperation of her 
powerful Papal and Puritanical enemies, who after abandon- 
ino' her in great numbers used their immense political power 
to keep her in the dust. But though they were for a long 
time successful, she finally recovered her feet, and now it may 
be said of her : " God even thy God hath annointed thee with 
the oil of orladness above thy fellows." 

That this is true of the English branch of our Communion, 
appears from the following extract from the Schaff-Herzog 
Encyclopaedia : 

During the century the vigorous life of the Church has 
been further shown by the restoration of Cathedrals and con- 
struction of Churches, in the creation of new Episcopal Sees at 
home and the rapid extension of the Church and Episcopate in 
the Colonies. At no time in its history has it been stronger 



APPENDICES. 



and more vigorous than now ; more alive with Theological 
discussion and achievement ; more competent to cope with 
mfadelitj ; more solicitous to relieve the poor and fallen ; more 
munificent m its gifts for the conversion of the heathen, or 
more adapted to secure the esteem and gain the respect of the 
Anglo-Saxon people." ^ 

That the same is true of the American branch of our Com- 
munion appears from what a writer in Harper's Weekly says • 
" The Episcopal Church has now for many years weie-hed 
tar more m public estimation than is indicated by its very mod- 
erate array of Communicants and Clergy in the United States, 
i ^^I'f America stands not alone, but is a Province of 
the world-wide Anglican Communion, and borrows as well as 
lends importance by reason of that association and kinship It 
derives dignity and gathers influence from its roots in the past 
from its mediatory position between the great Protestant 
bodies and the historic Churches, from its steadfastness among- 
winds- of doctrines, from its venerable order, from its sobriety 
of taste, from its grave splendor of public worship, from its 
widespread and devoted work among the poor, and from its 
great strength at centres of thought and influence." 

Nor is our unparalleled growth in the British Empire and 
America the only evidence of renewed life and vi^or We 
have become the greatest Missionary agency of Christendom. 
1 here are at this time nearly one hundred of our Missionary 
Bishops and four thousand other Missionaries in the field 
-Ihey are in every part of Europe, Asia, Africa, South 
America and in the Isles of the Sea. Many of these Bishops 
have now established strong Churches which are themselves 
sending out Missionaries. For instance, the Bishop of Sierra 
Leone has an entire corps of black Clergy and they are not 
only self-supporting, but they have sent twenty-eight Mission- 
aries into the interior of Africa." 

Nothing can be more certain than that, so far as the Eng- 
lish speaking race is concerned, the prophecy " They shall be- 
come one flock and one Shepherd " is destined to be fulfilled 
in the Anglican Communion. It will not be until after the 
English civilization has run a much more remarkable course 
than that of Rome, that a New Zealander " in the midst of a 
vast solitude shall take his stand on a broken arch of London 



CATHOLIC. 



477 



Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's." In the meantime 
some one who is a more reliable prophet and historian, if not 
a more brilliant rhetorician than Lord Macaulay, will record 
the collapse of the Papacy and the names of defunct Denomi- 
nations which are now flourishing. 



I 



XXVIII. 

CATHOLIC. 
Lecture VII; Page 347. 

WEAR the name of .Christ, my God, 

So name me not from man! 
And my broad country Catholic, 

Hath neither tribe nor clan: 
Its rulers are an endless line, 

Through all the world they went, 
Commissioned from the Holy Hill 
Of Christ's sublime ascent." 
Both Romanists and Denominationalists object to our use 
of the word "Catholic." This is because the former per- 
sistently claim, and the latter practically concede, the designa- 
tion to be the exclusive property of the Roman Church. 
Romanists call themselves " Catholics," and the body to which 
they belong the " Catholic Church." Denominationalists and 
not a few thoughtless Episcopalians in both their spoken and 
written utterances often politely allow this usurpation. It is 
said that in China courtesy requires a man to use disparaging 
words in speaking of anything belonging to himself or with 
which he is connected, so that if he were asked of what re- 
ligion he was, it would be proper for him to answer : The miser- 
able superstition to which I an addicted is so-and-so. There 
is a large and increasing element in the Episcopal Church who 
cannot conscientiously carry their politeness to such an ex- 
treme. We feel that consistency with our profession of faith 



478 



APPEXDIGES. 



and a regard for truth, require that we should rather protest 
against the exclusive appropriation by Romanists of what be- 
longs to us quite as much as to them. 

We profess to be Catholics, for in one of the Creeds we 
saj, -I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," and in the 
other, "One Catholic and Apostolic Church." One of the 
Creeds is repeated at every regular Service and often on less 
formal occasions. If the Episcopal Church is not really 
Catholic so far as the Faith is concerned, and Apostolic in 
respect to her origin and government, we should cease to repeat 
the Creeds. 

Catholic is a Greek word, which literally means general or 
universal, but this is not its entire significance in the Creeds. 
It has reference there to the doctrine and government which 
were universally believed and accepted by the Orthodox dur- 
ing the early ages of Christianity. The Catholic doctrine was 
defined by the Great Ecumenical Councils, and consists of the 
twelve articles which were first condensed into the Apostles' 
Creed and afterwards expanded into the Nicene. Durino- the 
Conciliary period, which closed with the year 680, there was a 
great deal of dispute about matters of dJctrine, but there was 
practical unanimity concerning the form of Ecclesiastical 
Government, and so the Creeds contain comparatively little 
upon the subject, in fact the older form contains nothing 
while the other has simply the word "Apostolic." This is 
however enough to abundantly justify the conclusion that no 
organization which was not founded by the Apostles and is 
not governed by Bishops, who are theii legitimate successors 
m Office, has a right to call itself a " Catholic " Church. 

Romanists and Denominationalists define the term "Catho- 
lic " very differently. The former makes it exclude all bodies 
of Christians except the Papal Communion and include all the 
Roman additions to "The Faith once delivered to the Saints." 
According to the latter, it embraces all Denominations that 
acknowledge the Divinity of Christ and look to Him for Salva- 



CATHOLIC. 



479 



tion, whether they adhere to the whole of the Ecumenical 
Creeds and discipline or not. But "can any one," asks Mr. 
Labagh, be so demented as to suppose that when the Primi- 
tive Christians repeated the Apostles ' Creed and said, • I be- 
lieve in the Holy Catholic Church ' or the Nicene Creed 
and said, -I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church' 
they embraced in that language the whole brood of Sec- 
taries that either then existed or might at any future time 
arise, and at the present time flourish.*' Both Romanists and 
Denominationalists agree that " Catholic " is a synonym for 
universal ; but the one applies it to the doctrines and govern- 
ment that are peculiar to the Roman Church, while the other 
contends that every sect has as much right as the Church of 
Rome to stamp its peculiarities with the imprint of " Catholic." 

Episcopalians agree with Denominationalists in this con- 
clusion, but we say that neither is right in supposing that the 
word " Catholic " "'in the Creeds has any reference whatso- 
ever to their respective peculiarities. On the contrary, it is 
not a justification, but a condemnation of them. We glory in 
the fact that, if judged by the Ecumenical Creeds, our Church 
has no uncatholic peculiarities, none whatsoever. This is true 
of her both in respect to doctrine and government. Romanists 
and Denominationalists boast of their doctrinal and govern- 
mental peculiarities, we of our freedom from them. Pecu- 
liarities are not notes of Catholicity but rather evidences of 
sectarianism. The dogmas of Transubstantiation. the Imma- 
culate Conception, the'^ Infallibility of the Pope, and Papal 
Jurisdiction, come perilously near to converting the Roman 
Church into a mere sect. Many think that so long as that 
Church persists in these and her many other peculiar heresies 
she has no title to be regarded as anything more than a sect. 
The names of Denominationalists, such, for example, as Pres- 
byterian, Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, Seventh-day 
Adventist, usually mark their heretical peculiarities and bear 
witness to their sectarian character. 



APPENDICES. 



That the Episcopal Church is the only Christian body in 
tins country to which the word "Catholic" as used in the 
Creeds is applicable, appears from the fact that she has no 
peculiarities and that her teaching and government are the 
sauae as those which always have prevailed. The remarkable 
fac cannot be made too plain that at this time our Communion 
neither teaches nor practices any essential thing which is 
peculiar to herself. If this statement, which no Romanist or 
Denominationalist would dare to make of the communion to 
which he adheres, be doubted, let him who calls it in question 
name so much as one doctrine of this Church that is not to-day 
taught by the majority of Christians. He who undertakes to 
do this will enter upon an interesting trend of investigation 
which wil ultimately bring him into the Episcopal Church • 
for not only will the truth of our representation be confirmed 
but the attractiveness of a Church devoid of peculiarities will 
become irresistible. 

"Ancient prayer, and song liturgie, 

Creeds that change not to the end, 
As His gifts we have received them,' 
As His charge we will defend." 



REFERENCES TO QUOTATIONS. 



The Lectures in their original form were written for the 
class room, not for publication ; and even when, after the 
lapse of several years, the work was prepared for the press, 
there was no expectation that it would be read by Clergymen 
and learned Laymen, who might want to verify and use its 
statements in their articles and books. Hence it was decided 
to omit the localizing foot-notes which increase and disfigure 
the pages of more pretentious volumes and are passed over by 
the ordinary reader. Accordingly no record of quotations 
was kept. The compiling of this Index has been therefore 
no little undertaking, and it was found to be practically im- 
possible to make it entirely complete. However, special pains 
have been taken to trace to their source all quotations which are 
likely to prove of any value to those who have represented 
that a list of references would be helpful to them and others. 

PAGES 

4, 35th line, Oldroyd, Continuity of the English Church through Eighteen 

Centuries, inside of front cover. 
9, 15th line, Barrett, The Churchman's Scrap-Book, p. 48. 

10, 16th line, Sadler, Prebendary, Church Government, p. 14. 

11, 16th line. Bp. Coxe, Apollos, or the Way of God, p. 94. 

12, 30th line, W. R. Huntington, The Church Idea, p. 211. 

13, 4th line, Hammond. John Wesley, " Being Dead Yet Speaketh," p. 114. 
14 27th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 376. 

8th line. Bp. Coxe, Apollos, or the Way of God, p. 45. 
18, 29th line, Drummond's Programme of Christianity, pp. 19-20. 

21, 21st line, Pearson on the Creed, p. 522. 

22, 7th line. Bp. Coxe, Apollos, or the Way of God, pp. 46-47. 
24, 1st line, Drummond's Programme of Christianity, p. 02. 
24, 15th line, Drummond, The City Without a Church, p. 45. 
24, 28th line, Drummond, The City Without a Church, p. 45. 

28, 9th line, Bp. Thompson, First Principles, p. 17. 

29, 4th line. Bp. Coxe, Apollos, or the Way of God, p. 95. 
31, 10th line. Miller's Parish Note-Book, p. 14. 

33, 3rd line, Gladstone, The Vatican Decrees, p. 33. 

33, 23rd line, Gregory, Epist. VII. 27, v. 20; v. 43; VII. v. 33. 

84, 35th line, Macleane, The Coat Without Seam Torn, p. 93. 

C. A.— 31 (481) 



482 THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 

PAGES 

35, Uth line, Maeleane. The Coat Without Seam Torn, p 61 
42, 21st line, J. H. Hopkins, Monsignor Capel, p 33 

42, 34th line, Littledale, Words for Truth, p 20 

43, 35th line. Church Eclectic, vol. 16, p. 154. 

45. 21st line. Gayer, A. E., Papal Infallibility and Supremacy, p 3 

46, 18th hue. "Janus," The Pope and the Council, pp 68-69 
55, 34th line, Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p 325 

57, 24th line. The Vatican Council, p. 88. 

58, 19th line, Gladstone-Schaffs Vatican Decrees, pp. 74-75 

59, 25th line. History of the Vatican Council. Dr. Schaff, p 79 

60, 9th line. Dr. Schaff, Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council p 167 

61, 15th line. Dr. Schaff, History of the Vatican Council, p 84 
61, 20th line. Dr. Schaff, History of the Vatican Council, p 89' 
61, 28th line, " Janus." The Pope and the Council, p 40 

61, 32nd line. Pretended Speech of a Bishop in the Council, p. 195. 

66, 8th line. Keenan's Controversial Catechism. 

67, 12th line. "Janus." The Pope and the Council, p. 129 
67, 24th line. Quarterly Review, October. 1889, p. 384. 

67, 31st line, The Church Standard, February 9. 1895. p 442. 

74, nth line, " Janus." The Pope and the Council, p. 52. 

75, 3rd line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p 474 
75, 34th line. New York Churchman, September 28, 1895, p 329 
77, 4th line, Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, pp 196-197 

80, 29th line, " Janus." The Pope and the Council, p 60 

81. 10th line. Dr. Schaff. History of the Vatican Council, p. 98 

81, 23rd line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p 61 

82, 8th line, R. C. Jenkins, The Privilege of Peter, p. 147 

82, 17th line, R. C. Jenkins, the Privilege of Peter, p. 147 

83, 2nd line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 132. 

83, 6th line. Puller. The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, p XII 
83, nth line. Gladstone-Schaff . the Vatican Decrees, p. 162 

83, 27th line. The Vatican Council — Speech of Abp. Kenrick, p. 126 

84, 5th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 88. 
84, 9th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 88. 
84, nth line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 88. 
84, 13th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 88. 
84, 16th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 89. 
84, 19th line, Quirinus, Letters from Rome on the Council, p. 832. 
84, 26th line. The Sequel to the Council, The Vatican Council, p. 229 

84, 33rd line. Innocent III., Serm. 2. De Consecr. Pontif., p. 189, ed Colon 1575 
86, 4th line, Littledale, Words for Truth, p. 58. . . 

86, 33rd line, Supremacv of the Pope Disproved, p. 47. 

87, nth line. Speech of Abp. Kenrick. The Vatican Council, p. 107-109 

88, 13th line, Salmon. Infallibility of the Church, p. 54. 

88, 19th line, Roman Missal, Collect for the Vigil of St. Peter and St Paul 

89, 27th line. Gore, Roman Catholic Claims, pp. XVII-XVIII 

90, 31st line, Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, p. 353. 

91, 5th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 256. 
91, 8th line. Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 256 
91, 12th line, R. C. Jenkins, The Privilege of Peter, p. XII. 

91, 30th line. Bp. Wordsworth, Greek Testament with Notes, vol. I., p. 246. 

92, 16th line, J. H. Hopkins, Monsignor Capel, p. 19. 

93, 30th line. Pretended Speech of a Bishop in the Council — The Vatican 

Council, p. 179. 

94, 5th line, Pretended Speech of a Bishop in the Council — The Vatican 

Council, p. 181. 

94, 31st line. Pretended Speech of a Bishop in the Council — Tlie Vatic 

Council, p. 177. 

95, 10th line. The Sequel to the Council — The Vatican Council, p. 236. 

96, 16th line, " Janus." The Pope and the Council, p. 63. 

96, 20th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 63. 

97, 1st line, Kurtz, Church History, p. 157. 

98, 19th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 126. 
98, 23rd line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 126. 
98, 26th line, Eusebius, lib. VII., ch. 30. p. 279. 

98. 33rd line, Puller. The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. p. 51. 

99, 20th line, Robins, On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 133. 
100. 15th line. Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 94. 

100, 19th line. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. p. 71. 



EEFEEEXCES TO QtJGTATIOXS. 



483 



PAGES 

104 3rd line. See Smith's Anglican Orders ; Whence Obtained, p. 10. 
104 -^oth line. Dennv. Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction, p. 143. 
110. 4th line. " Janus,"' The Pope and the Council, p. '217. 
110. 2-5th line. Robins. On the Claims of the Roman Church, p. 244. 
lio! 29th line. Willis' Pope Honorius. p. 2i3. 

110. 35th line. Willis' Pope Honorius, p. 26. 

111. 16th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 324. 

111. 25th line. Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 4o6. ^ . 

ir^ 23rd line. Littledale, Plain Reasons Agjiinst Joining the Church of Rome, 
p. 90. 

113, 22nd line, Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 284. , ^ „ 

114, 2nd line, Littledale, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 

114, 29th Une! Littledale. Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 

115 5th^line,'Ross-Lewin. Continuity of the English Church, p. 49. 

115, 14th line, Ross-Lewin, Continuity of the English Church, p. 49. 
115, 19th line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 147. 

115. 33rd line, " Janus," The Pope and the Council, p. 289. 

116, 10th line, " Janus." The Pope and the Council, p. 289. 

116 26th line. Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 1(6. 
117' 2nd line, Robertson. The Growth of the Papal Power, p. 181. 
lis', lOth line. Scilmon. Infallibility of the Church, p. 102 

118, 19th line. Pretended Speech of a Bishop in the Council — The \ atican 

Council, p. 193. 
120, 8th line. Marshall's Cyprian, part II., p. 263. 
1-^1 3-?nd line, Wilson. W. D.. The Church Identified, p. 123. 
12-^ 19th line. Smith. J. B., English Orders; Whence Obtained, p. 12, 
123" 18th line, Courayer on English Ordinations, p. 292. 

123. 35th line. J. H. Hopkins, Monsignor Capel, p. 39. 

124. 11th line. J. H. Hopkins, Monsignor Oapel, p. 39. ^ ^ ro 
l-Xo sth line. Dixon. Historv of the Church of England, yoI. I., p. 58. 
l'>5" -xsth line. Denny's Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction, p. 155. 

l->(; luih line. Sealiurv's Haddan's Apostolical Succession, p. lOo. 

rv," 3i<t line. Hussev', On the Rise of the Papal Power, p. 63. 

127! 4th line. Hussey. On the Rise of the Papal Power, p. 64 

107 -ntli line, M. R. Butler. Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders, p. 39 aiid 40. 

127! 30th line. Lee, Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England, 

198 23rd line'. Gore, Roman Catholic Claims, p. 147. 

129, 12th line, Courayer on English Ordinations, p. 285. 

129, 26th line. In Courayer on English Ordinations, p. 318 

129 33rd line. In Courayer on English Ordinations, pp. 319-£>20. 

13l', 30th line. The Living Church, May 19. 1894. 

1: ml liSI: EjyTVeS^lidfty of the Holy Orders of the Church of England, 
137, 10th Une^Lee, Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England, ch. 

138 15th"nne^'Lon?on Church Times, September 25, 1896, p. 297. 

139, 5th line. Church Eclectic. January. 1895, p. -931. 

140, 25th line, London Church Times, September 2o, 1896 p. 292 
141 2<sth line, London Church Times, September 2o, 1896, p. 292. 

143, 30th line. Report of the Proceedings of the Reunion Conference at Bonn m 
1874. pp. 50. 51. 

150. 3rd line. The Christian Union, 1894. _ , ^ -o m,vnc= 

151. 15th line. Bp. Leonard, AVitness of the American Church to Puie Chiis- 

tianity, p. 15. -, . r, .-> 

151, 28th line. Bp. H. M. Thompson's The Kingdom of God. p. 8. 
156, 11th line. The Christian Union, 1894. 

160, 7th line, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 218. , -, ^ -r- . . 

160, 12th line. Firminger's Attitude of the Church of England to non-Episcopal 

Ordinations, p. 33. 
160. 83rd line. Simcox. pp. 62, 63. 

162. 21st line. The Christian Union, 1894. , ^, 

166 16th line, Hammond. What Does the Bible Say About the Church, p. 23. 

166, 34th line. Hammond, What Does the Bible Say About the Church,_ p. 12. 

167, Sth line, Hammond. English Nonconformity and Christ s Christianity 

p. 150. 



484 



THE CHURCH FOE AMERICANS. 



PAGES 

167, 6th line, William Law, Letter III., pp. 8, 9. 
171, 31st line, Cunningliam's St. Austin, p. 116. 
174, 1st line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 42. 
174, 3rd line, Bp. Bull, Sermon XIII. Works, vol. I., p. 328. 
174, nth line. Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 65, 
174 , 22nd line, Seabury's Haddan's Apostolical Succession, p. S5. 
174, 34th line. From the sermon preached at the Consecration of Bp. Sessums 
by the Bishop of Mississippi. 

176, 21st line. Gore. The Church and the Ministry, pp. 123-124. 

177, 14th line. Gore. The Church and the Ministry, p. 125 

178, 1st line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 120. 

178, 10th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 109 
178, 16th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 109 
178, 19th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 519 

178, 34th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 112 

179, 3rd line. The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, ch. XIII . p 247 
179, nth line, Sanderson, On Episcopacy, part III., sec. 2. 

179, 13th line. Just Vindication of the Church of England, p. 29 

179, 17th line, Taylor, Works, vol. VII., Dedication, p. XVIII. ed Heber 

179, 24th line, Laud, On Church Ritual, p. 347. (1840) 

179, 26th line, Staley, The Catholic Religion, p. 28. 

179, 28th line, Contemp. Review, October, 1877, p. 722. 

179, 33rd line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 306 

180, 26th line, Eagar, The Christian Ministry in the New Testament p 36 

181, 26th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 110. 

182, 30th line, Sadler, Church Government, p. 10. 

183, 4th line. Bp. Leonard, Witness of the American Church to Pure Christian- 

ity, p. 67-68. 

184, 30th line, Labagh's Theoklesia, p. 20. 

185, 3lst line, Staley, The Catholic Religion, p. 33. 

185, 33rd line, Staley, The Catholic Religion, p. 33. 

186, 2nd line, Staley. The Catholic Religion, p. 33. 
186, 4th line, Staley, The Catholic Religion, p. 34. 

186, 6th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 296. 
186, 19th line. West, The Kingdom of Heaven upon Earth, p. 68 
186, 23rd line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p 245 
186, 32nd line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p 246 
186, 35th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 521 
191, 22nd line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 24. 
191, 24th line, Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 24. 
191, 27th line. Gore. The Church and the Ministry, p. 24. 

191, 31st line, Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 17. 

192, 2nd line. Gore. The Church and the Ministry, p. 17. 

192, 6th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 237 
192, 10th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 238 
192, 13th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 241 
192, 14th line, Hammond, The Christian Church: What is it, p. 246 
192, 17th line, Hammond, The Christian Church : What is it. p. 246 
192, 19th line, Hammond. The Christian Church : What is it. p 246 
192, 25th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p 241 

192, 35th line, Hammond. The Christian Church : What is it. p 247 

193, 3rd line, Hammond, The Christian Church: What is it, p. 247 ' 
193. 6th line, Hammond. The Christian Church : What is it, p. 247 
193, 9th line, Hammond, The Christian Church : What is it. p. 247 
193, 12th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministrv. p. 28. 

193, 23rd line. Gore. The Chvu'ch and the Ministrv. p. 49. 

194. 14th line. The Westminster Confession, ch. XXV, 
194, 17th line. Hymn 220. 

196, 16th line, Article XXV. 
196, 20th line. Article XXV. 

198, 8th line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 294. 
198, 21st line. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 298. 

198, 33rd line, Gore. The Church and the Ministry, p. 299. 

199. 9th line. Gore. The Church and the Ministry, p 156 
201. 20th line, Hammond. What is Christ's Church, p. 20. 

203, 22nd line, Hammond. "John Wesley • Being Dead. Yet Speaketh.' " p. 54. 
203. 2oth line, Hammond, " John Wesley ' Being Dead, Yet Speaketh,' " p 54 

203, 30th line. Rev. W. Arthur, Contemp. Review. July, 1887. 

204, 24th line. Perry, English Church History, II. 333 



• REFERENCES TO QUOTATIONS. 



485 



PAGES 

205, 26tli line, Hammond, English Nonconformity, and Christ's Christianity, 

p. 54. 

206, 20th line. Cole, R. H., The Anglican Church, p. G4. 

207, 22nd line. Miller's Parish Note Book, p. 19. 

208, 22nd line. Bp. Coleman, The Church in America, p. 70. 

211, 8th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 275. 

211. 13th line, Marshall's Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 275. 

212, 5th line. The Westminster Confession, eh. XXV. 

212, 15th line, Seahury's Haddan's Apostolical Succession, p. 23. 
214, 13th line. Communion Hymn, Ancient and Modern, 553. 

221, 30th line. Endowments and Establishment, p. 16. 

222, 15th line, Goulburn, The Holy Catholic Church, p. 36. 
223 4th line. Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 211. 

223, 27th line. Bp. Kip, Double Witness of the Church, p. 126. 

224, 17th line. Abp. Bramhall's Works, I. 2. 

224, 25th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 105. 

225, 31st line. The State in Its Relations to the Church, vol. II. 127, 1841. 

226, 24th line. Preface concerning the Service of the Church, Prayer Book, 1549. 
226 , 27th line, Howard, R., The Church of England and Other Religious Com- 
munions, pp. 200-201. , ^, 1 ^-U 1, T-- 

226, 33rd line, Oldroyd, The Continuity of the English Church through Eight- 

een Centuries, p. 36. 

227, r2th line. Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 177. 

228, 6th line, Nye, The Right of the Church of England to Her Property, p. 14. 
230', 5th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome;" pp. 139-140. 

230, 29th line. Church Standard, August 17, 1895, p. 458. 

231, 2nd line. Church Standard, August 17, 1895, p. 458. 

232, 25th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, pp. 121-122. 
234, 5th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, p. 194. 

234, 9th line, Burnet, Collection of Records, 6, 181. 
234, 22nd line, Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, p. 195. 

236, 20th line. Garnier, Title-deeds of the Church of England, p. 31. 

237, 6th line, Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, 5. 
237, 13th line, Cole, R. H., The Anglican Church, p. 48. 
237, 17th line, Hore, Eighteen Centuries, pp. 6-8. 

237, 24th line, Coit, Early History of Christianity in England, p. 26. 
237, 27th line, Blackstone's Commentaries, bk. IV., ch. 8. 
237, 33rd line, Pryce, Ancient British Church, p. 52. 

239, 28th line, W. E. Gladstone. Speech in House of Commons, May 24, 1870. 

240, 23rd line. See Bede and William of Malmesbury. 

240, 31st line. Bp. Lightfoot, Leaders in the Northern Church, p. 9. 

241. 5th line. Bp. Lightfoot, Leaders in the Northern Church, P-'IO. , 

243, 7th line. See Perry's Student's English Church History, First Period, p. 30. 

244, 3rd line. Cole, R. H., The Anglican Church, pp. 94-95. 

244, 12th line. Nye, The Story of the Church of England, p. 35. 

244 , 27th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I.. p. 

145-146 

245, 5th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I., p. 147. 
245, 19th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I., p. 148. 

245, 27th line, See Perry's Student's English Church History, First Period, 

p. 205. 

245 , 30th line, Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 204. 

246, 21st line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome. p. 61. 

247, 15th line. Cole, R. H.. The Anglican Church, p. 97. 

247. 30th line, See Brown's Fasciculus, II. 250. 

248 , 3rd line. Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 219. 

248, 23rd line, Oldroyd, A. E. Continuity of the English Church, p. 23. 

248, 26th line. Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. I., p. 229. 

248. 35th line. Words for Truth, Littledale, pp. 39-40. 

249, 24th line. Manning, " On the Unity of the Church." 

249, 32nd line. Leaders in the Northern Church, Bp. Lightfoot, p. 52. 
253, 6th line. Dr. Ingram, England and Rome, p. 140. 

253, 29th line. Bp. Leonard, History of the Christian Church, p. 238. 

254, 11th line. Bp. Coxe, Institutes of Christian History, p. 151. 

255, 5th line, Barrett, Nineteen Questions About the Protestant Episcopal 

Church, p. 3. 

256, 20th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 126. 
256 , 25th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 126. 
256, 35th line, Hammond, What is Christ's Church, p. 126. 



THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 



9S' Sth ' Hammond What is Christ's Church, p. 126. 
K' SJS i'^'' Sanford's Bampton Lectures, 1861; p. 49 
S«' 1 A^""^!*"'*^^ Bampton Lectures. 1861 p. 49. 

Ififi' ]V2i' f,? t"^"' ™« C*'"''<=li M America p.- V 

26?' «h R^''VvM','''%''°''''«''J?''**"''y o' American Church, p 109 



273. 17th line, Hooker, Eccl. Pol. VII., see. 4. 



o-!' E^yi?^' <-'^apman's Sermons on the Church, p 7G 
278,' USI; gPym'ilf ^^"^""^ ^^^^^^ ^^'^^^U Church, p. li. 

284, 34th^^line, Dupm, Compendious History of the' Ehurch, Century XL, ch. 

off' l!f?uH?®' Stearns, The Faith of Our Forefathers, p 41 

?tn/.'^%l'''r of Christian History, Bp. Co^xe p. 22 

Sfi' i^fh i^f ' ^'^''t?' I^^stitutes of Christian History, p!^23 
o?q' 1 -^"'"^'rr.?"''^'. I^oiiiaai Catholic Claims, p. 97. 
!qV' "^^' The Cincinnati Tribune, October 21, 1895 

|: h>|^e.|i.^o^K MiVVh' - - 

gress." "'^"""P"™ "1 engraving entitled " The.Flrst Prayer In Con- 
So' 2??,."ii<i. Tie Cincinnati Trifcune, October 21, 1885. 

S?^"'ffe,?.'hS"s"t2a?i!i°Y/8! J^&r iT"^" ^p'^""^^' p- 

o}^' ^^^^n^^^®' Si'itisli Weekly, January 17, 1890 

p 227^' ^^^^^°^^' English Nonconformity and Christ's Christianity 

'''' ''i!jn1'E^p^s%^op^al»^:rif ' can Say of the Prot- 

ooa' 11^. ^n?^' ^|i"es. Looking for the Church, p. 29 

!?' 26tS ?n'e' ^orS'.^^T? ^"P^^^ies of the Christian Church, vol. I., ch VIII 

Qoo' f'^t^.^ine. Barrett, The Churchman's Scrap-Book. p 36 

??o' in.V'i''^' Barrett, The Churchman's Scrap-Book, p 36 

S!' i« S i"^' ^''■f.*^' '^Hf Churchman's Scrap-Book^ p 35. 

A Si i-"'%^^'^Churchman, December 24. 1887, p. 733. 

Br' 1^^^' ^^^l^^. Missionary Use, No. 3, p. 8. 

336, 28rd line, Rubric in the Prayer Book 

337, 20th Hne, Hammond, English Nonconformity and Christ's Christianity, 
?S' JSV''''''r?P-,y^i>^' Comprehensive Church, p. 62. 

SI' l3th liS^; xxr 

oa^' o'!i.^?^"®l Anecdote related by Bp. J. S. Johnston of Texas 
il' ?I?>,^r'^' J^^^^S'" The Pope and the Council, p 18 
JtSr ''^'■^'^^^i'''^.' ^^'^ ^'^^^^ O^^r Forefathers, p. 256 

: f/nt^;asS!j;rih??£s;s^^ ~. p. 50, 

1^^: ili^^;?.'|-MrTiil'c?4St^n°i^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



REFEEEXCES TO QUOTATIONS. 487 



PA&ES 



366, 3lst line. Dr. McConnell, History of tlie American Episcopal Church, pp. 

368. 20m Sic. M. R. Butler. Rome-s Tribute to Anglican Orders, p. 44. 

S' ^^''S^'S^'i^.'^^^^s'^ the American Church to Pure 

374 llth'ine! ThS: Beecher. ^Yhat a Congregationalist Can Say of the Prot- 
' estant Episcopal Church, p. 13. 

Claims cS the Amei-lcan Episcopal ChurcH pp. 20-26. 

II; liSI: ^=i: ^ |Pf . JS; 

KiSe.\'l?leWf B.a.s, p. «. 

388 6th line, Hammond, A\ hat is Christ s Churcn, p. iu. 
qss" sth line Hammond. \Yhat is Christ's Church, p. 10. 

llfh nne SpTecli at the Wolverhampton Church Congress. 
nSI: B^p' Coxe. institutes of Cl^ristian Hrstory, p. 283. 

391. 33rd line. The Churchman, April ^ 1894 p. 404 

392, 19th line, The Churchman, April 1894 p 404. 

SQS 2.5th line. History of the English People. J. R.>ieen 

llV qth line Slarshairs Notes on the Catholic Episcopate, p. 286^ - 

S : 2i h Une, Ma4airs Notes on the Cath9lic Episcopate, p. 314. 

g' ^ ^^eSeV • ^^fSUp. Spea.eth,' " p. 14. 

i Spea.eth,' p. 43. 

400. Sth line. John Wesley Works, XIII., 58 

401. 6th line. The Churchman, April 14, 1894, p. 432. 

121' sth^Jie! pYr^iSSger's Attitude of the Church of England to non-Episcopal 

406 22nd^Une,' Bp:^(fk^^^^^^ The Apostolic Office, quoted by Clarke in " A 

' Walk Ahout Zion." pp. 90-92. 
408, 15th line, Living Church, June 29, 189o. 

l\^|'BSlSS?aS^fngto^^^^^^^^ I^i-ourse to Young Men, p. 19 

4^' 2? h liSe Bolles" Washington : A Centennial Discourse to Young Men, p. 18. 

ith lini' Bol es Washington : A Centennial Discourse to Young Men, p. 19. 
t%' ^jriiie!BollS:Wa^^^ A Centennial Discourse to loung Men, p. 19. 

JIndWie Bonef WasSngSS? ? cliitennial Discourse to Young Men, p 20. 
So; Sst^line:lp: Perry! The Ame^^^ Church and the American Constitu- 

411. 4th °nn?,Bp. Perry, The American Church and the American Constitu- 

411. l0th°Un?; Bp. Perry, The American Church and the American Constitu- 

411 16th°line, Bp. Coleman, The Church in America, p. 74. 

tl[:?^flli"e!B"p^>'~e?m\?^^^^ 

til^flbB'^p^P^ef.^.^'^gefSL'^n't^ 

413, 21st^litl: Bp. Perry, The Faith of the Framers of the Constitution of the 
414 34th^m?e, Bp.^PeT?y,' The Faith of the Framers," p. 2. 

and Answered, p. 18. , ^, . oa 

419, nth line. Mines, Looking for the Cnurch. p. 30 
419 15th line Alines, Looking for the Church, pp. 29-30. 
IIq l^h line Shields The United Church of the United States, p. 2.d. 
S?' 2'£d liSI: The Goid way ; or. Why Christians of Whatever Name May Be- 

421. 27tnine^srnkTn,'s^on?e Objection to the Episcopal Church Considered 
and AnSAvered. p. 17. 



THE CHURCH FOR AMERICANS. 

PAGES 

ill' V"^' Wesley's Sermons, No. CXV. 

'''' ''ciB;rci?;?;elSet Tis '^^^^ W^-t^-r Name May Be- 

'''' '"cVm?cSu?ehrelTp^i8-[9'^^^^ ^l^^^-er Name May Be- 

ll' ifh'^lVn^f '1?""'^';^^''.°.^"'^ the Clmrch, pp. 30-31 

v"""' ^?"e^' ^^oking for Uie Cliiirch po 177-17« 
loJ' oi*? ^^"e^' Lookinf for the Church' pp' 32-SS 

1?!' J-S ^^&"^'^h Eclectic, Decemberi894 p 816^' 
!S' ?« h J""^' ghurch Eclectic,' December 1894', p 816 
IS' oi? I ""^^ Butler, Rome's Tribute to Aiiffliean Orders 
435, 26th line, London Church Times Tnl v ti isqa ' 

Hi' ,7i^ r''^' Palmer's Church History, p.^163 
ttt' K h Ine' M^rT^' and R^m? p .183. 

tta l^li 1^2' J^.^Cl^^'e's Magazine, June, 1896, pp 3-4 
IS' 1 l^ne, Living Church, September 19, 1896 p 586 

M?' 8 £ Hne' n v!n^ September 19, 'l896, 'p^5i " • ^ • 

447' 21st li^P Vi^n"^ 9n'"'^^' September 19, 1896. p. 586 
448' 29th Ane TiTp P^.?-fi'' r?' S^Pt^mber 19, 1896, p. 586. 
4S' 29r,^ lV^.' A Pacific Churchman, June 15, 1896. 

lii^liipisiL 

If' f!?,.^"'^' ^^''ye^ ^^ok' Baptismal Office. ' 

l^fi' r"^' ^''''y^'' Baptismal Office. 

1?5' o^^^ line. Prayer Book, Communion Office. 

457, 8rd line, St. John, 20: 23. 

457, 7th line, St. John, 3: 5. 

457, 26th line, St. Matthew, 26- 26-28 

457, 32nd line, St. John , 6 : 52-58 

458, 9th line, I. Corinthians, 10- 16 

458, 18tyine, Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, vol. II., p. 

!S' 9?f£ ll"^' R^^l State .Journal, Monday Morning, February 10 1896 
£??-'"*^'^9^°ted m Kip's Double Witness, pp. 215-216 ' 

tli' Itll'^ 1^"^' The Oklahoma Churchman, June, 1896 
475, 27th line, Psalm XLV., 8, Prayer Book VersinT 

9?SllnrpS^^^f Herzog'EncS^diaTvoLT; p. 729. 
oi!^, ^\"®' Church Life, August, 1896, p. 9 ^ 

' ' Chu"rch,tr"' Questions About the Protestant Episcopal 

So' fShV/if ' ^''^^'t'^ ^" ^^P's Double Witness, p. 237. 

480, 18th line, Fry, Lectures on the Church of England, p. 17. 



INDEX. 



ABBE DUCHESNE, 134 ; testimony of, 
against so-called defectiveness of 
Edwardian Ordinal, 140 ; on Doctrine of 
Intention, 141. 
Abbe Portal, M. Dalbus, on the Validity of 

Anglican Orders, 133. 
Abbott, Archbishop of Canterbury, re- 
marlss of, on Calvin's apphcation for 
Consecration to the Episcopate, 397. 
Abraham, the Jew, Conversion of, to Chris- 
tianity, 117. 
Absolution, priestly, as taught by the Epis- 
copal Church, 352. 
Accessions to Episcopal Church from De- 
nominationahsts, 142, 305 ; from Rom- 
anists, 307. 

Adams, letter of, to his wife, concerning 
first prayer in Congress, 294 : admission 
as to the important part.of Episcopalians 
in the Revolutionary War, 379. 

Adrian VI., confession of, regarding the 
liability of Popes to err, 82. 

Advent, from, to Trinity, teaching of, 
Bishop of Ohio on, 373. 

Agreement between Anghcan and Greek 
Churches, 39, 145; between Anglican, 
Greek and Roman Churches, 47, 345; be- 
tween Anglican and Roman Churches, 
119 ; affected by Leo XIII.'s decree of 
Anglican invaUdity, 144 ; between the i 
Anglican Church and Denomiuational- 
ists, 390. 

Aidan, St., not Augustine, the Apostle to 
the Saxons, 240. 

Alfred, King, lease given by the Church of 
England in his reign, 228. 

America, discovered by Episcopalians, 261, 
361 ; the Episcopal Church canonic- 
ally the Church of the country, 280. 

American Episcopal Church, the, 259-310 ; 
the, pre-Colonial period, 261-262; Colo- 
nial period, 263-275; National penod, 
276-310 ; most Scriptural and Apostolic 
Church, 356 ; the Apostohc, 359-361 ; the 
racial Church, 361-368 ; valid ministry 
of, 369-371 ; offers superior opportun- 
ities, 371-381; its doctrinal stabihty, 
381-386; the only hope of Christian 
unity, 386-402. 

Amusements left to the conscience of Epis- 
copahans, 325 ; all, permitted that do 
not break the Baptismal vows, 462-464. 

Anabaptists, the, and Martin Luther, 211. 



Anecdote concerning a little girl and her 
non church member grandfather, 20 ; 
a woman who was not a sinner, 25 ; the 
miner and the General Confession, 26 ; 
the woman who married a Denomina- 
tionaUst, 31 ; Sixtus V. and the Bible, 
72 ; the Grotto of Lourdes, 75 ; the House 
of Loretta, 76-77; the conversion of 
Abraham, the Jew, 117 ; Dr. Wolff and 
the Greek Bishop, illustrating the un- 
scripturalness of a self-constituted min- 
istry, 209; illustrating the importance 
of more instruction concerning the 
Episcopal Church, 217 ; illustrating tne 
misfortune growing out of the want of 
Episcopal oversight, 266; concerning 
Chief Justice Marshall, 276 ; Bishop Sea- 
bury and tne Presbyterians, 281 ; con- 
cerning Bishop Chase, 287 ; of Bishop 
Bedell concerning the young deacon 
aTid the Denominationalists, 334-336; 
of Presbyterian lady and ex-Methodist 
minister on confession, 352-353 ; change 
in Calvinistic theology, 384 ; the old- 
time Church socials, 462. 

Angelo, Michael, in his " Last Judgment," 
includes Popes and Cardinals among 
the damned, 116. 

Anglican Bishops, connection of, with the 
Apostles, 370. 

Anghcan Church, the Communions in- 
cluded in the, 39; the Pope's offer to re- 
ceive it to Roman Communion, 130, 139 ; 
why its controversies are not wholly 
settled bv appeal to Scriptural and 
Patristic writings, 152; occupies the 
via media between Denominations and 
Rome, 196, 344, 386 ; the Church of our 
race, 368. 

Anglican Communion, the, doctrinal stabil- 
ity of, 65-66, 386 ; the future of, 396. 

Anglican Orders, 119-146; independent 
Apostolic strands in, 122 ; Leo XIII.'s re- 
cent decree of Invalidity reviewed, 132- 
146; admitted validity of, by M. Dal- 
bus, 133 ; Abbe Duchesne, 134 ; by 
several Roman dignitaries, 136 ; the 
Sorbonne Faculty on, 136-137; vahd- 
ity admitted by members of the Vati- 
can Council, 137 ; Papal decisions on, 
137-139; Dr. Dollinger on, 143; Greek 
Catholic scholars, testimony of, on, 434- 
436. 

(489) 



490 



INDEX. 



^^^^^^can Ordination, wanting in no essen- 

Anglicans, advantage of, over Denomina- 
tionalists, in dealing witla the Roman 
pretensions, 53; wlierein thev differ 
3i3-355; disposed to 
admit the primacy of St. Peter, 90 ; ap- 
peal of, Romanists to the Pope and De- 
nommationalists to their founders, 155 

Anglo-Saxons, not converted by Roman 
Missionaries, 238. 

Anne, Queen, in the reign of, arrangements 
SSonies Ss^ bishops to the American 

Anti-InfalUbihsts at the Vatican, 59 

Antioch, Church of, set apart St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas to be Apostles, 173 

Apocrapha, the, regarded as Scripture by 
Romanists, 63. ^ 

Apostasy to Rome, the, 306-307; will be 
larther decreased by Leo XIII. 's decree 
of Anglican invalidity, 133. 

Apostles, equality of, established by Scrip- 
tures, 92. •* 

^Posttes and Saints, worship of, liturgical. 



Asbury, Wesley's repudiation of his Epis- 
copal pretensions. 400. 

^^""^nnf o?i ^^^{^^^nce with British Bish- 
ops, 243 ; first Bishop of Canterburv, 370 

Augustine, St. , and Pope Gregory I 41 43 ■ 
?^ " you the Kevs,"'89 ; on 

the visibihty of the Kingdom of God, 

Avignon Schism, the, 64. 



Apostleship, St. Paul's, not a justification 
of Denommationalism, 338 

Apostolate, its perpetuity promised 173 • if 
perpetuated, as essential to the Church 
now as ever, 175 ; perpetuated in the 
Episcopate, 176. 

Apostonc Canons, an evidence of Xational 
Churches, 42. 

Apostolic Church, the depositorv of Sacra- 
mental grace, 194 ; necessity of com- 
munion with, 197. 

Apostolic Commission, the evidence of 
National Churches, 40. 

Apostolic origin of the threefold ministry 
Lightfoot on the, 405-406. ^' 

Apostolic Sacraments, teaching of the 
198 concerning the necessity of, 

^Postoiic See of Rome, the only one in the 

Apostolic Succession, through Parker and 
^t^-' l^^ ' testimony concerning, bv 
Abbe Portal, 134; illustrated by the 
Oak tree, 175 ; from the Episcopates of 
•Jerusalem, Rome and Ephesus, to the 
Anghcan Communion, 370 

Aquinas, Thomas, completed the founda- 
tions of fraud upon which the Roman 
system IS built, 109-110 

Archbishop Bramhall, on the line of Apos- 
tohc Succession, 179. 

Archbishop of Canterbury, the, remarks on 
umnstructed Church members 5 • on 
Enghsh Romanism, 368. 

Archbishop Laud, Apostohe Succession 
independent of Rome, through, 130 • of- 
fered the Cardinal's hat, 139 

through lio^^^' Succession 
Argument for the Scripturainess of Na- 
tional Churches, 40. 
Arian heresv, the, 71, 339. 
Ark of Salvation, the Church, 188-194 



B^^fj ^^Ser, imprisoned bv Rome, 78 
^^^altmore. Lord, and Maryland tol- 

Banc-roft on refigious liberty to Americans 

the gift of Romanists, 364-368. 
Baptisin, the door to the Church, 19 the 
mode appointed by Christ for confes- 
sion of Him, 21, 460; Roman ceremo- 
nies m connection with, 80- valid 
even when irregular, 191, 207 ; an Epis- 
copal Clergyman the first to adminis- 
ter it m America, 262; of Pocahontas, 
26o; properly called "the new birth '' 

T^oJ- f'r.^^'^P-®*^'^ ^y Confirmation, 460. 
Baptist Denomination, date of the 34 • a 

; subdivisions 
of the, o40 ; no longer Calvinistic, 384; 
will probably pass away, 473 
R^K/^i^^'^-^^f Episcopal accessions, 306. 
Baptists, the interchange of pulpites 331- 
hp1i ?^' doctrine of, 

?l .u^^T^^^^ Church, 389; one signer 
aLon|,?69'm"'^ °' Independlnce 
Barlow's Consecration admitted by Roman 
writers, 128, 134. ^^au 
Barnes Albert, encomium of, on the Book 
of Common Prayer, 419 

^^'p?pls, llfSr^' im^^orality of 
Bede the Venerable, citation from 43 
Beecher Henry Ward, encomium of on the 

Book of Common Praver, 4'>4 
Beecher Thomas K., encomium of, on the 

Book of Common Prayer 423 
Bellarmine, Cardinal, authority for the 
charge of Papal deceit, 74 ; Papal igno- 
rance 80; on Papal jurisdiction, 84 
Bible sectanan and non church member- 
ship not accounted for bv Its seeming 
contradictions, 2; date of its construe 
tion, lol; divisions of Old and New 
Covenants, 189; Latin translation of 
bixtus \ ., 72; by Rome interdicted to 
the common people, 74, 112. 
Bishop and Pope used interchangeably 103 
Bishop and Presbyter originally convert- 
ible terms, 180, 273-274, 405. 
Bishop Lightfoot, on the conversion of the 
Anglo-Saxons 240; on opposition of 
JSf. ^o^n"'^' ^Jl'^'^''^ to Roman usurpa- 
fw'J^?^' Apostolic origin of the 

threefold ministry, 405. 
Bishop Pearson and 'Bishop Coxe on non 
church membarship, 21-22. 



INDEX. 



491 



Bishop Seabury, arrival of, in America, six ( 
years before a Roman Bishop, 280. 

Bishop of Rome, the first, 89; the first to ' 
arrive in America, 280. 

Bishop of Vermont, the, on Papal InfalU- 
bilitv, 67. 

Bishops,' the, of canonical descent, perpet- 
uators of the Church, 37 ; number of, 
in Britain, 41 ; early Roman, interpre- 
tations of the texts rehed upon by 
Uhramontauists, 86-89 ; the, of to-day 
prove the Bishops of eighteen cen- 
turies ago, 175 ; Fathers on the necessi- 
tv of, to the existence of a Church, 176- 
185; Roman, in England, disclaim any 
title to the property of the English 
Church, 227; supremacy of in their 
own jurisdictions, 265 ; the creation of 

. spurious ones for the United States 
mooted, 277; American, all have the 
Scottish as well as the English succes- 
sion, 284; American, not Autocrats, 
298 ; Pastoral Letter of the, 346 ; An- 
glican,connected with the Apostles, 370, 

Bishops of Alexandria not Presbyters, 182, 

Bishops of Apostolic Succession necessary 
to the existence of a Church, 37. 

Bishops of Iowa and Maryland, the, on 
Roman accessions to the Church, 307. 

Blasphemy, the, of Papal Infallibility, 61. 

"Blue Laws" of New England, the, 267. 

Boccaccio, worthy of Roman Canonization, 
117. 

Boniface VIII., Pope, and his Bull, Unam 
Sanctam, 88. 

Book of Common Prayer, the, a proof of 
the Continuitv of the English Church, 
225-226; part'of, in the conversion of 
the President and Faculty of Yale Col- 
lege, 271 ; encomiums on, by non- 
EpiscopaUans, 416-428; Pope Pius IV., 
on, 432, 433; its teachings justified, 
against Reformed Episcopalians, 455- 
458. 

Bossuet's Variations among Protestants, 66. 

Bramhall, Abp., the line of ApostoUc Suc- 
cession, 179. 

Breviary, corruption of, in the interest of 
the "dogma of infalUbility, 111. 

British Bishops, conference with Augus- 
tine, 242. 

British Church, representation of, in great 
Councils, 41 ; not a mission of Rome, 
237 ; difference between it and the Ro- 
man Church, 237-238. 

Bull, Papal, of Leo XIII., decreeing Angli- 
can Orders invalid, 132-146. 

Bunyan, John,, the wish of, concerning 
prejudice, 385. 

CABOT, John, discoverer of America, 
261, 361. 

Calvin, apphed to English Bishops for Con- 
secration, 48, 397 ; his doctrines aban- 
doned by Baptists and Presbvterians, 
383. 

Calvinistic theology, 384. 
Canon or laws of the Apostles, 42. 



Card-playing and amusements a matter of 
conscience, not of legislation, 462-464. 
Carroll, Bp., the first of the Roman Church 
in America, arrived six years after 
Bishop Seabury, 280. 
Cathedrals and old Churches of England, 
the, an evidence that British Church 
was not a mission of Rome, 238. 
Catholic, how to determine w^iether or 
not a Church is, 360 ; significance of, 
as applied to the Episcopal Church, 
477-480. 
Cathohc Creeds, 68, 477-480. 
Causes leading to Papal Infainbihty, 61 ; ol 
the incorrect opinion that Henry VIII. 
founded the Church of England, 221 ; 
accounting for the slow growth of the 
Episcopal Church at first in America, 
278-302. 

Celebrated EpiscopaUans, some, 255, 256, 

289-297, 326, 377-381, 
Celibacy, when introduced by Rome, 67. 
Celtic, Church of, not annihilated by the 

Angles and Saxons, 238. 
Celtic Evangelists more successful than 

Roman Missionaries, 240. 
Celtic Priests and Missionaries, influence 
of, 241. 

Ceremonies, tendency to unduly depreciate 
them, 196. 

Certitude, desire of, accounts for the doc- 
trine of infallibihly, 61-68. 
Challenge of Hooker to the Presbyterians, 
the, 206; of Cranmer to the Roman 
Catholics 225. 
Change, the, from Episcopal polyarchy to 

Papal monarchy, 105-106. 
Charity expressed for those who differ from 

us, 9-11, 201, 207, 211, 332. 
Charles II., patent made out in the reign 
of, appointing Rev. Dr. Alexander 
Murray Bishop of Virginia, 268. 
Chase, Bp., anecdote connected with the 
laying of the foundation for " Old Ken- 
yon," 287. 

Chillingworth, crushing answer of, to the 

representations of Presbyterians, 184. 
Choice of a Church, the, 29-50 ; not free to 

follow preference, 30. 
Christ, formed a Church to be entered, 2-19 ; 
loyal Church membership necessary to 
the service of, 18 ; examples and pre- 
cepts of, 18; came to save sinners, 
hence the insufiiciency of the excuse, 
"not good enough," 25; profession 
of, 28; the Vine, not the Pope, 41; 
Pope not the Vicar of, 67 ; unwilhng 
to name a chief among His followers, 
92, 94-95 ; founded a visible Church, 155- 
172; mission of, not to disseminate a 
philosophy, but to establish a King- 
dom, 156 ; established a Church, 159 ; 
authorizes the use of pre-composed 
prayers, 314. 
■ Christ's Gospel has more to say about the 
Church than any other subject, 19. 
Christ's Mvstical Body, 10. 
Christ's great word, "The Kingdom of 
God" 18. 



492 



INDEX. 



Christendom, divided, 12; divided into 

five Patriarcliates, 103. 
Chnstmni, signification of the name. 160 
Christianity, importance of its ecclesias- 
tical aspect, vi ; the foundation of civil- 

Christian Unity, a prayer for, 13 ; the Epis- 
copai Church the only hope of, 386-401 
Christians, non church members not origi- 
nally regarded as such, 20 ; Denomi- 
nations of, in America. 35. 
Chryscstom, St., Service Book of, used in 

Constantinople, 315. 
Church, the, fidelity to, illustrated, vii, 9 • 
Its existence a necessity admitted by 
Renan, 24. 25 ; the choice of a, 29-50 
261 ; to which, God would have us be- 
long, 31 ; conceptions of, 32-47 ; Roman 
conception of, 32; Denominational 
conception of, 33 ; Greek and Anglican 
conception of, 38; and the State, 126 • 
Anglican conception of, incomprehen- 
sible to Denominationahsts, 149 ; Scrip- 
ture on the visibility of, 160 ; visibility 
01, proved by history, the Sacrament of 
Baptism the Councils, Persecutions 
and Excommunications, 168-169 • 
founded by Christ, perpetuated by suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, 172-188 ; none 
without Bishops, 175, 185 ; the Ark of 
Salvation, 188-194 ; founded by Christ 
and perpetuated by Bishops of the 
Apostolic Succession, the Depository of 
Sacramental grace, 194-199 ; Cathohc 
covenanted salvation hmited to it, 211 • 
British, not a Roman mission ' 237 • 
American Episcopal, free from Roman 
errors, 257 ; Colonial period of, 263-275 • 
Episcopal, why called the Church, and 
the American Church ? 264 ; the Mother 
ot English speaking Christianity, 264 ; 
the National period, 276-310 ; American 
Episcopal, prejudices against, 287- 
American Episcopal, classed as a sect 
chief cause of slow growth, 302 ; Ameri- 
can Episcopal, future prospects of, 309 • 
American Episcopal, objections to, 311- 
353 ; American Episcopal, the most 
Scriptural and Apostolic, 356-359 ; Cath- 
olicity of the Episcopal, tested 360 • 
American Episcopal, the Church of 
our race, 361 ; the Roman, why not 
^^^u.^i^l'^^ ' AngUcan Communion ad- 
mitted by Romans and Greeks to be 
. the Church of the Enghsh Race, 368 • 
American Episcopal, as a school, 37'> • 
American Episcopal, superior educa- 
tional system of, 376 ; American Epis- 
copal, doctrinal stability of, 381-386- 
American Episcopal, Comprehensive- 
ness 01, 391; American Episcopal, the 
Church of the poor, 464-465 ; American 
Episcopal a Catholic f ;hurch, explana- 
311^3.56 ^"^"^^^ ' ^^jections to, 

Church Government, Presbyterian explan- 
ation concerning the development of 
Episcopacy, 180-185; Bishop Griswold 
on Presbytenan hypothesis, 406-408- 



M JfPify " Tlie Ministerial Of- 
nce, 436-440. 
Church Members, uninstructed, 5 ; isolated 
5-9 ; course to be pursued by such 7 •' 
exhortations to, 9. 
Church Membership, 15-50 ; the obligations 
to, 15-29; necessity of, on the part of 
those who would serve Christ, 194 
Church of Americans, the, justification of 

the use of this title, 264. 
Church of England, the, reviled by earlv 
^^^^o^inationalists, 204; the Mother, 
9^? ifn' ^^i^e.nce of its continuity, 225- 
235, 440 , Estates of, not claimed by the 
Church of Rome, 227; robbed by the 
Popes, 231 ; not originally a Mission of 
Kome, 2o6-242; Roman encroachments 
upon, and their resistance, 242-258 • in- 
dependence of, evidence by the Magna 
Charta, 247 ; impartial testimony con- 
cerning her excellency, 255 ; on the 999 
years lease of property, 227-229 440-441- 
continuity of, proved by the 'uninter: 
of lier Bishops, 441- 
Phntlt' not secede from Rome, 443-444. 
Churches human, identification with, sin- 
'm [National, denied by Romanists, 
40 ; National, testimony of " Janus " 45 • 
Jewish and Christian, Divinelv an' 
pointed government of polyardhicaV 
not monarchical, 105. 
City Congregations, obligations of, to rural 
ChuSs'6= indebtedness of, to village 

^'"{;',2!S."^^" 
" Civilita Cattolica," 84. 
<^i^iligZations, so far all founded on rehgion, 

Claims, Roman, unknown in the earlv 

Sed%.^^^P^^""^ 
Clarke, Dr., encomium of, on the Book of 

Common Prayer, 421. 
Class middle, constitutes the principal part 
of the Episcopal Church, 328 ; poor as 
welcome in the Episcopal Church' as 
elsewhere, 329 ; upper, the genius of the 
Episcopal Church, as manifested in 
making the most of her adherents, 328 
Clay Henry, on the importance of the 
Episcopal Church, 299; interesting cor- 
^'^o"t' with reminiscences 

01, 448-451. 

Coincidences, remarkable, at the Vatican, 

Coke, Dr.,appUcation for Consecration as 
Bishop, 48. 

College of Apostles to continue to the end 

of the world, 173. 
Colonial Church, the, 263-275; originallv 
under the supervision of the Bishop of 
London, 265, 278. 
Columbus, Christopher, his discoveries in 
the Western world, 362 ; Spanish and 
Papal claims based upon them 363 
Conimission, Ministerial, the, to the Apos- 
tles, 40; the Divine, always accom- 



INDEX. 



493 



panied by the testimony of miracles, 
210-211, 338. 

Communion, the Pope offers restoration to 
the AngUcan Church, 130. 

Communion, Holy, rubrical directions af- 
fecting admission to, 336. 

Conference, Augustine and British Bish- 
ops, 212. 

Confession of Christ, how made, 2x, 4dO. 

Confession, Westminster, anecdote concern- 
ing '>6; on the necessity of Church 
membership, 194 ; dialogue concerniug. 

Confirmation, a condition of Communion 
in the Episcopal Church, 336, 460. 

Congregational "meeting-house" changed 
to '• Church," 37. 

Congregationalists, the, when formed, o4 ; 
self-constituted organization of, 170 ; 
left Calvinism, 384 ; five signers of the 
Constitution, 413-414 ; thirteen signers 
of the Declaration of Independence, 
469-470 ; their claim of laying the foun- 
dations of American Independence 
disproved, 469-471; to pass away, 

Consecration, Dr. Seabury's 280 ; effect of, 
282. 

Constitution, the, of the United States and 
the faich of its framers, 413-414. 

Continuity of the EngUsh Church, 217-235 ; 
illustrated, 222-225. 

Contradictions of Papal utterances, 70. 

Contrast between Episcopal Church com- 
prehensiveness and Denominational 
narrowness, 342. 

Controversy between Anglicans and Rom- 
ans, 5]"-146 ; points passed over, 146 ; 
• between AngUcans and Denomination- 
alists, 147-214. ^ . 

Conversion, of Abraham, the Jew, to Chris- 
tianity, 117 ; of the Anglo-Saxons, 238- 
241. 

Converts to the Episcopal Church, 4 ; lale, 
the President and Faculty, 271-272 ; to 
Episcopacy from other ministries, 305. 

Council, Church, the only, recorded in the 
New Testament, 102. 

Council, of Bari, 242 ; of Carthage, 151 ; of 
Chalcedon, 104 ; of Constantinople, 96 ; 
of NicEe, 96 ; of Trent, 43, 44, 112 ; Eng- 
lish Prelates invited to Council of 
Trent, 139. 

Covenant, necessity of, 189 ; none outside 
of the ApostoUc Church. 190. 

Covenanted salvation limited t(> the Cath- 
oUc Church, 211. 

Coxe, Bp., on non church membership, 
21-22. 

Creed, Roman, changes in, 66. 

Cromwell, Oliver, the character of, 253. 

Cummins, the, schism, 302 ; the untenabil- 
ity of their position and the invalidity 
of their orders shown, 452-459. 

Cup, the, withheld from the Laity by 
Romanists, 67. 

DALBUS, M., on Anglican Orders, 133. 
Damnation of Infants, 70, 384. 



Dancing, the attitude of the Episcopal 

Church towards, 462-464. 
Dark Ages, the, 107 ; gold drawn from Eng- 
land by Rome during, 231. 
Dates of formation of Denominational or- 
ganizations, 34 ; of Roman heresies, 66- 

Declaration of Independence, influence of, 
on the Colonial Church, 278 ; two-thirds 
of the signers Episcopalians, 378 ; faith 
of the signers, 409-470. 
Declaration of Rights, the Virginian, 290. 
Decrees, Papal, 64; spurious, 109. 
Decretals of Isidore, Papacy built upon, 109. 
Depreciation of ceremonial observances, 
196,212. 

DeMaistre, Count, on the Anghcan Com- 
munion and Christian Unity, 389. 
Denominational Sacraments, benefit of, 
195; ministry and Sacraments, 206; 
clergy joining the American Episcopal 
Church, 305 ; educational system com- 
pared with that of Episcopal Church, 
376 ; latitudinarianism of, 381-385. 
Denominationalism, change which has 
come over it due to Episcopalian, not 
Roman, influence. 309; rapid growth 
not an evidence of Catholicity, 339 ; cer- 
emonial resemblance to Romanism, 349. 
Denominationalists, their conception of the 
Church, 33-38, 48, 150, 332; advantage 
of Anglicans over, in the Roman con- 
troversy, 53 ; controversy with, 147-214 ; 
where they and Episcopalians part 
company, 155; texts cited by them, 161, 
164-108 ; Episcopalians more liberal in 
their treatment of other Christians than, 
201 ; unchurched the Church of Eng- 
land, 204 ; reviled the Church of Eng- 
land, 204 ; more exclusive than Episco- 
palians, 339-342; and Romanists, con- 
flicting testimony of, concerning the 
Episcopal Church, 344; agreement with 
EpiscopaUans in regard to the necessity 
of a valid ministerial commission, 369. 
Denominations, when founded, 34 ; impos- 
sibility of removing doubt concerning 
their Catholicity, 38 ; founders of, more 
in harmony with Episcopalians than 
their professed followers, 48 ; no more 
free from Roman error and superstitions 
than the Episcopal Church, 257 ; had 
their rise in the bigotry of schismatics, 
340-341 ; departure of, from their 
founders, 383 ; have passed and will 
pass away, 471-473. 
Different schools of thought included in 

the Episcopal Church, 342. 
Diocesan system, development of the, 102. 
Disciples, name given to them indicates the 

visibihtv of the Church, 160. 
Distinction "between Cftris/ia??a and Christ- 
id, 160 ; grace and faith, 193. 
Divisions, hurtful among Christians, 10-11, 
332; evils of, among Christians illus- 
trated by the Mississippi at flood time, 
11 ; unjustifiable, 202 ; heresy and, in- 
separable, 382 ; hinders the evangeliza- 
tion of the world, 388. 



494 



INDEX. 



Doctrines of transubstantiation, purffatorv 
aiid indulgences introduced Si 
t^'r l^ l^rlr^'^'}^ effectually disproved 
by Leo XIII. 's decree of the invalidity 
?>^'^^fn''^^'' 140: of intention^ 

• /i^l'^V,' .^denominational, recognized 
m the Episcopal Church, 390. "^'''^^"^ 

Doddridge, Dr., encomium of, on the Book 
of Common Praver, 419 

iSf^^^'^''' ^^'^^ ^^"or " The Pope 
and the Council," under the nom de 
plume of "Janus," 46: reiection nf 
Papal infallibility' by. kfin PeteA 
Roman Episcopate, 91 ; on the vahditv 
ot Episcopal succession, 143 
Drummond, H., on the need of Churches, 

"""f an oU??'i3r '''' ^"'^'"^ 

"""'LfshTp^iS''^'-^^^ ^'^^"^^^ 

JPCCLESIA,Xhe signification of, 159. 

-tcclesia Anglicana, the continuity of 
proved, 224-235, 284 ^ ' 

Ecclesiastical view of Christianity, impor- 
tance of the, vi 

t^e, as an educator, 

^^""T.^.^^t^rF^^?^"'' an evidence 

against Papal pretensions, 95: Con- 
voked by Emperors, 96; Oriental in 
representation, 96 ; final authority for 
ten centuries, lOG. 

"^^"muiSSif %??8r ^iiglican Com- 

^^^^^jjjg^t^e^ Confessor, called Vicar of 
Edwardian Ordinal, the, similar to the 
?40^141 ^^^^^ Roman Offices, 129, 
Encomiums, by non-Episcopalians, on the 

Book of Common Prayer, 416-428. 
England, King and Pope supporting each 
other, 233 ; Church of, nit originally a 
Mission of Rome, 236-242; exclusion of 
Itahan Clergy, 248. 
English Church, when founded, 40 • never 



Episcopal Church the, Apostohc Succession 
of, lo0-146, 3/0 ; the via media between 
IM?' Denominationalism, 
196, 344, 38b ; effect upon, of the Revo- 

Si'^nf^-.^^ ^^^"*^-'''/ consolida- 
tion of, 2/8 ; Canonically the Church of 
America, 280; unity strained by the 
Civil War, 286; slow growth of ac 
counted for, 287-302; ground fS en- 
cou.'agement as to the future, 304- 
/^fl^ence of 307; objections 
-04 . pA'ifS-' t^"^* m good works, 

o24 , conflicting representations of De- 
nominationalists and Romanists 844- 
Dotn Catholic and Protestant, 345 388 • 
resemb ance of, to Rome, stops short of 
superstition, 345; not like Rome De* 
nommationalists being witnesses '?53 • 
A ^^^'^'^r* Scriptural and Apostolic 356 ■ 
to-day doctrinally 
as m the first century. 381 ; comprehen- 
siveness of,, 389-391 ; the Church of the 
Reconciliation, 396 ; statistics of, show^ 
mg growth from 1880 to 1890, 435 its 

Episcopal, Reformed Church, the so-called 
o03 ; simply a Denominational organi- 

tfoiro/fhf V-t^^j^'^^^^^ to por- 
tions of the Liturgy, considered, 456- 
458 ; the regret of the leader that he 
had formed the, 458. 
Episcopalians, conception of the Church 
which prevails among them, 38 • differ- 
ences between them and Denomina- 
tionahsts, 155; texts cited by them 
respectively, 157-161 ; some celebrated 
and patriotic, 255-256, 289-297, 3 >6 37^ 



included m any Patriarchate, 103-104 
continuity of, 217-230 ; lease showing 
90^ ?.n^<?^®'' ^ thousand years old 
228, 440-441; protests of, against the 
usurpations of the Popes, 247- inde^ 
pendence of, 249 ; continuity of proved 
for 1300 years by property, "^40;^^ 
nuity of, proved by uninterrupted suc- 
cession of her Bishops. 441-443 f did not 
secede from Rome, 443-444 
English Reformation, the, precipitated, not 
caused by the matrimonial affairs of 
King Henry VIII., 230, 234, 252; based 
on «cnpture, 257. 
Episcopacy, conversion of the President 
ana Faculty of Yale College to 270 ■ 
prejudice against, in colonial times' 
28/ ; Presbyterian explanation concern- 
ing the development of, 180-185 ; Bishop 
^i^Zfrn^^'i'^^ Presbyterian hypothe- 
tSiS o'^'ci,'4t"40.''''^ 



- persecution of, by Puritans,' 26? • 
why Americans should be, 357-40'> • 

57q®?i r ^.'^^^'"^ the Constitution; 
413-414 ; thirty-four signers of the Dec- 
laration of Independence, 469-470- 
fijat ^preponderance of, in the world,' 

^^'pn^^i^'io^^fi'''^^' ^ever deposed by 
AnStAl«?p' 1^-^' a perpetuation of the 
Apostolate, 1//; priority of Ane-lican 
in America, 280. -'ii^gncan 
Equality among the Apostles, 92 101 • of 
the early Bishops, 98-100. ' -^^-^ - 

pirChurcTl??'''^'"'^'^'" 

Estates of the Church of England not 
claimed by the Church of Rome 997 

Eucharist, the Holy, first recorded celebra- 
tion m America, 263 ; rubrics regulat- 
ing admittance to, 336-837 ; teachins of 
the Prayer Book concerning, 457-458 • 

wii fermented wine in, 466-469;' 

sMu ^f/^^r'^^fP'f^^'^^ Pubhc Wor- 
-r.^,.fj^^P: ?1^-^18; of schism, 10-12, 332, 882 

Sghi;' 21-26^ Episcopal over: 

Ex- Cathedra Papal utterances, 60, 64 
Exclusiveness, the alleged, of the Episcopal 

Church, disproved, 331-343, 

S''20r^'°''' ^^^^ 
Excuses of non Church members, 24-29. 



INDEX. 



495 



Experience Meetings, a stumbling-block to 
the shrinking and nervous, 460. 

Extempore prayer in Public Worship, evils 
of, 314-318 ; the Anglican view of, and 
relation to, 459-461, 



FABLE, "Nag's Head," 127; references 
thereto, 133, 135, 143. 
Faculty of Yale College, conversion of, to 

the Episcopacy, 270. 
Faith, the, of the signers of the Constitu- 
tion, 413-414 ; of the signers of the Decla- 
ration of Independence, 469-470. 
False Decretals, the, their part in the de- 
velopment of the Papacy, 109. 
FaUibility, Papal, proved by the contradic- 
tory decrees and admissions of the 
Popes, 70-82. 
Fathers, the, appealed to by Episcopahans, 
49 • number of, according to Romanists, 
65 ; nature of the evidence adduced 
from, largely inferential but scarcely 
less satisfactory on that account, 152 ; 
testimony to the perpetuity of the 
Apostolic office in the Episcopate, 176 ; 
on the necessitv of Bishops to the ex- 
istence of a Church, 185; on the neces- 
sity of membership in an Apostolic 
Church, 191 ; on the necessity of Apos- 
tolic Sacraments, 198. 
Fermented Communion Wine, objection to, 

considered, 466-469. 
Fidelity to the Church, illustration of, vii, 9, 
First, the, Church Council, 102; recorded 
Christian service within the hmits of 
the United States, 262 ; Baptism in the 
United States, 262 ; American Church, 
263 ; recorded celebration of the Holy 
Eucharist in the United States, 263; 
American Episcopal Bishop, 279 ; Rom- 
ish Bishop to America, 280. 
Fluency often a Denominational test of 
piety, 460. 

FormaUsm, a groundless objection urged 
against the Episcopal Church, 318-321. 

Formosus, the body of Pope, indignantly 
mutilated by Pope Stephen VI., 72. 

France, Church of Rome re-estabhshed in, 
by Napoleon, 254. 

Franklin, an Episcopalian, 290, 411. 

Fraud, Papal, 80, 109, 133. 

Freedom of early Roman Bishops from 
heresy a cause of the doctrine of infal- 
libility, 68. . . ^ 

Fuller, Thomas, on the introduction ot 
Christianity into the British Isles, 236. 

GALILEO, condemned by the Inquisi- 
tion, 78. 

Gardner, Bishop, testimony of, that the 
Reformation in England was in accord 
with the will of the people, 234. 

Genebrardus, Archbishop of Aix, on Pa- 
pal profligacy, 114. 

Gibbons, Cardinal, refuted, 284-285. 

Gladstone, Hon. W. E., on the continuity 
of the English Church, 225 ; on the cry 
of " unchurching Denominations," 337. 

Gore, Canon, on the Fathers and Papal 
claims, 89. 



Gospel, demand for one with the Church 
left out, 19. . 

Gough, Dr. Stephen, the case of, a valuable 
proof of the vahdity of Anglican Or- 
ders, 136. 

Government, Church, Presbyterians on the 
development of Episcopacy, 180-185; 
the Presbyterian hypothesis, 406 ; John 
Wesley on Ministerial Office, 436-440. 
Grace, Sacramental, the Apostolic Church 

the depository of, 194. 
Gratian's code, the part of this hterary 
fraud in the development of the Pa- 
pacy, 109. ^ ^ T_ T 

Greek Church, the, 38-40; affected by Leo 
XIII. 's Bull of Anghcan Invahdity, 144 ; 
high estimation of Anglican orders by, 
434-436. ^ ^ ... 

Green, J. R., on the future of the Enghsh 

race, 395-396. ^ . ^ 

Griswold, Bishop, on the Presbyterian hy- 
pothesis, 406-408. 
Growth of the Papal primacy and suprem- 
acy, 101-118 ; of the Episcopal Church 
in America, slow at first, 278-302 ; rapid 
at present, 143, 304-310, 393 ; of the Eng- 
hsh speaking population of the world, 
395 ; of the Episcopal Church in Amer- 
ica, 1880-1890, 415-416; of the Episcopal 
Church, perpetual, 472-473. 



HALIFAX, Lord, leader of movement 
for reunion with Rome, 138. 
Hall, Robert, encomium of, on the Book of 

Common Prayer, 422. 
Henry VIII., King, wrong impression that 
the Church of Rome was the Church of 
England up to the time of, 217-224; 
causes of this impression, 221 ; the ma- 
trimonial affairs of, not the cause of 
the English Reformation, 230, 234, 252 ; 
did not found the present Church of 
England, 251 ; his character and creed, 
252-253 

Heresies of the Roman Church, 66-67. 

Heresy of Pope Honorius, 80, 97. 

Historic Episcopate, the, accepted until 
the Reformation, 206. 

Historical investigation, necessity of, before 
choosing a Church, 261. 

History against Roman claims, 47, 91, Ib/- 
146 ; appeal to, regarded by Cardinal 
Manning as treason and heresy, 47 ; the 
testimony of, justifies the claims of the 
Episcopal Church, 49, 54, 143, 168-258, 
reconstructed by Romanists to their 
interest, 107 ; proves the Mother Church 
of England to be a true branch of the 
CathoUc Church of Christ, 217-258; brief, 
of the American Episcopal Church, 
284 ; the future of Sectarianism in the 
light of, 472, 473. 

Holy Cathohc Church, what is meant by 
the, 477-480. 

Honorius, Pope, guilty of the Monothelire 
heresy, 80 ; anathematized by the sixth 
Council, 97 ; disappearance of the re- 
corded condemnation of, from the 



496 



INDEX. 



Roman Breviaries in the sixteenth cen- 
tury, 110. 

Hooker's challenge to the Presbyterians, 

JDENTITY of the Church of England 

_L after the Reformation with that which 
was before, 225-235. 

Idolatry of Pope Marcellinus, 70. 

Ignorance or fraud, Papal, 80, 109, 13.3. 

Illustration from flood of Mississippi River 
11 ; from imaginary conversation of 
General Moltke, 11 ; of unwillingness 
to admit human sinfulness, 25; of 
readiness to confess short-comings, 26- 
27 ; of the Church as a Vine, 39-40 ; 
from Presidential messages, ].53; from 
a tunnel, 184; from Jeroboam's revolt, 
201 ; from restoration of Gothic tower, 
222; of the River Rhone, 223;. from 
restoration of the Chapel Roval, 223. 

Images, use of, introduced by Rome, 67 ; 
supported by Pope Adrian I., 78. 

Immorality of the Popes, incompatibility 
of, with the L'ltramontane claims, 113 ; 
Cardinal Baronius on, 114, 117 ; Ultra- 
montane apologv for, 116. 

Importance of the Ecclesiastical view of 
Christianity, vi; of belonging to the 
National branch of the One Apostolic 
Church, vi. 

Independence, Declaration of. Episcopa- 
lian signers, 378 ; faith of all the sign- 
ers, 469-471. 
Indulgences, when introduced, 67. 
Infallibility of the Papacy, 54-82 ; decree of, 
60 ; strong condemnation of the doc- 
trine justified, 61 ; accounted for by the 
desire for certitude, 61-68 ; disproved by 
conflicting decrees, heresies, and ad- 
missions of the Popes, 70-82 ; denied by 
the minority of the Vatican Council,137. 
Infidehty, a revulsion from Papal Infalli- 
bility, 62. 

Influence, the, of a school-girl, 9 ; of Church 
tracts, 149 ; of the Episcopal Church's 
observance of the Ecclesiastical year, 
309, 374. 

Institutional Religion, neglect of, account- 
ed for, 1. 
Insufficiency of mere morality, 18. 
Intellectuality of Roman minority against 

the claim of Papal iufallibilitv, 58, 136; 

of the Anglican Communion, 371-381. 
Intention, the doctrine of, 135, 141. 
Interdict, the result of the, 115. 
Invective, Papal, 99 ; Denominational, 204. 
Iowa, Bishop of, testimony as to accessions 

from the Roman Communion, 307. 
Irenseus, saying of, " No Church without 

a Bishop," 186 ; on schism, 192. 
Irish Bishops, their connection with the 

consecration of Archbishop Laud, 131. 
Irreverence, frequent, of extempore public 

prayer, 316-317. 
Isidorian Decretals, 109. 
Isolated Church people, exhortation to, 9. 
Isolation, no reason for abandoning the 

Church, 8. 



Italians, Vatican Council packed with 

55. 

TANUS," the pseudonym adopted by 
fj the writers of "The Pope and the 
Council," 46; on the Jesuits, 61; on 
Papal names, 67 ; on Thomas Aquinas, 

JeflTerson an Episcopalian, 289, 412. 
Jest, a Papal. 55. 

Jesuits and Papal infallibihty, 55 ; "Janus" 

on. 61 ; their part in Leo XIII. 's decree 

of Anglican invalidity, 133. 
Jurisdiction, the Pope's original, extent of 

44 ; the Pope's, 83-118 ; texts upon which 

the Papal claim is built, 85. 
Justification of proselytizing, 13-14. 

^^T^EENAN'S Catechism" on Papal in- 
JlV faUibility, 65-66. 

Kenrick, Roman Archbishop of St. Louis 
publication of his famous undeliv- 
ered speech at the Vatican Council, 
56-57; on the Bull of Bonifice VIII 
83-84. 

Kingdom of God, the, Christ's great word, 
18; a visible Kingdom or Church, 155- 
172 ; St. Augustine on the Visibility of 
171. 

Kings of England, league of the, with 
Popes, 223. 

LATIN Bible, the, of Pope Sixtus V., 72 
Legal proof of the Continuity of the 
English Church, 228. 
Legend, absurd, of Constantine, quoted bv 

Adrian I., 78. 
Lent, influence of its observance by the 

Episcopal Church, 309. 
Leo XIIL, Pope, the decree of Invalidity of 

Anglican Orders, 132-146. 
Letter, Adams, of, to his wife, 294 ; Bish- 
ops' Pastoral, on Ritualism, 346. 
Lightfoot, Bishop, on Celtic EvangeUsts, 
240 ; on opposition of the British Church 
to Roman usurpation, 249; on the Apos- 
tolic origin of the threefold Ministry, 
405-406. 

Liguori, Dr. Alfonso M., on the relation of 

the English Church to the Roman 

Church, 251. 
Limitations of Papal infalhbility, 60. 
Lists of authorities consulted, 16, 52, 148 

216, 260, 312, 358. 
Liturgies, ancient use of, bv Apostles and 

Saints, 314-315. 
Loretto, the house of the Blessed Virgin in 

76-77. 

Lourdes, the grotto of Massaveivelle, at, 75. 

Luther, Martin, sanction of the Historic 
Episcopate by, 48, 397 ; demanded mir- 
acles of the Anabaptists as Credentials 
, of Divine Commission, 211. 

Lutheran Denomination, the, should em- 
brace Ep'scopacv, 49; has wandered 
far from Luther, its founder, 383 ; will 
ultimately pass away, 473. 

Lutheran reason for the growth of the 
Episcopal Church, 305. « 



INDEX. 



497 



MAGNA CHARTA, an evidence of the 
independence of the Church of Eng- 
land, 247. ^ w uic 
Manning, Cardinal, regards appeal to his- 
tory as treason and heresy, 47 ; on Fapal 
iurisdiction, &4 : on the opposition ot 
British Church to Rome, 249, 444. 
Marshall, Chief Justice, an anecdote con- 
cerning, related by Bishop Meade, 2,b. 
Mar^-land, Bishop of, on accessions to 
Roman Communion, 307 ; colonists ot, 
the great majority of, Protestants, 3bb. 
Alatrimouy, conflicting Papal decrees re- 
specting, disprove the doctrine of infal- 
libility, 71, 72. . . . ^ - 
Members of the Church, unmstructed, o , 

neglected, o-l. ^ , - 

Membership, Church, duty of. lo-29. _ 
Methodism, when founded, 34 ; a society, 
not a Church, 36-37 ; the, of to-day, put- 
ting on the external garments of the 
Church, 307; will pass away like other 
human organisations 472-473. 
Methodists, of to-day, not followers of \\ es- 
lev, 203. 383 ; exchange of pulpits 334 ; 
subdivision of, 340 ; one signer of the 
Constitution among, 413-414 ; their esti- 
mation of the Prayer Book, 421. 
Metropolitan System, the, 102. 
Mini'^ters of various Denominations becom- 
ing EpiscopaUans, 142, 305 ; why Epis- 
copalian, do not exchange pulpits, illus- 
trated by an anecdote from Bishop 
Bedell. 334-336. 
Ministry, change from Jemsh to Chris- 
tian attested by miracles: self-constitut- 
ed, presumption of, 210-211, 338 ; John 
Wesley on the, 436-440. . 
Miracles demanded as evidence of Dmne 

Ministerial Commission. 210-211, 338. 
Missionary efforts unsuccessful through 

divisions among Christians. 388. 
Missionary spirit, need of, 6. ^ , ^v,„ 

Moltke, Gen., imaginary address of, to the 
army, illustrating the evils of divisions 
among Christians, 11. 
Monothelite heresy, the, 80. 
Montalembert, on Celtic evangelization ot 

Britain, 241. 
Montanism, 70. -u * 

Monuments which isolated members of 
the Church can build to themselves, 8. 
Morahty, mere, insufficient, 18. 
Moses, bigotry of, in the eyes of Korah, 

Dathan and Abiram, 333. 
Muhlenburg, Rev. Peter, the warrior Cler- 
gyman, 293-294. 

Ct -^AG'S HEAD," Fable of, 127, 134,135, 

Names of the Roman Church, 42 ; for the 
Lord's Supper. 180 ; for Church Gov- 
ernors, 181 ; of some prominent and 
patriotic Episcopahans, 255-256, 289-29 
326, 377-381. . , , , 

Nation and Church, not intimidated by 
Henry VIII., 233. ^ 

National'Church, the, of America, 2-6-310. 

National Churches, the Apostohc Church 



divided into, 39 ; their Scripturalness, 
40 ; existence of, proved from the Ro- 
man Church, 42 ; existence of, demed 
by Romanists, 45 ; Janus " on, 46. 
Need'of Missionary spirit, 6. „ „ 
New York Statistics of the Chief Bodies of 

Protestant Christians in 189o, 473. 
Non church members, not generally serv- 
ants of Christ. 17 ; not originally re- 
garded as Christians, 19. . 
Non church membership, population ot, 1 ; 
virtually a denial of Christ, 22 ; unjusti- 
fiable, 24-25 ; is no escape from respon- 
sibiUty, 27-29. ^ . ^ 

Non Episcopalians, encomiums of, on the 

Prayer Book, 416-428. 
Non Sectarianism, fallacious, 3 ; impossi- 
ble. 4. 

North British Review, encomium m, on 

the Book of Common Prayer, 416. 
Xumber of non church members, 1 ; ot 
uninstructed Churchmen, 5 ; of Denom- 
inations, 35 ; of Denominationalist ac- 
cessions to the Episcopal Church, 200, 
275 ; between years 1880 and 1S90, 41o- 
416; of Clergy refusing assent to the 
Reformed Offices in England, 23o ; ot 
Anglicans in the world, 330; Protes- 
tant Christians in 1895 in New >ork 
473; of English speaking bodies of 
Christians in the world, 474. 



OBEDIENCE, a reason for Church mem- 
bership, 17. 
Obiect of this work, the, 3-13. _ 
Obiections to Church membership answer- 
ed, 24-29 ; that the Episcopal Church is 
like the Roman, answered by Leo XIII. , 
133 ; the, to Anglican conception of the 
Church as set forth in Lecture IIL, 
199-214; the, to the Episcopal Church, 
311-355 ; the, to the Episcopal Church 
Prayer Book Worship, 313-318 ; the, to 
Formalism, 318-321 ; the, to Vestments, 
3'?1-3M ; lack of vital rehgion, 324-327 ; 
composed of upper classes, 3'27-330; 
bigoted and exclusive, 331-343 ; like the 
Roman Cathohcs, 343-355 ; its permis- 
sion of amusements, 462-464 ; the use of 
fermented Communion wine, 466-469 ; 
the use of the title, "Holy Catholic 
Church," 477-480. ^ ... ^ ^ 
Obligations acknowledged, viu-x ; the, to 

Church membership, 17. 
Observance of ReUgious Festivals, Angh- 

can, 309, 374. 
Office, the Ministerial, extract from John 

Wesley's famous sermon on, 436-440. 
Official name of the Roman Church, 42. 
Ohio, Bishop of, on the educational system 

of the Episcopal Church, 373. 
Orders, Anghcan, 119-146; independent 
Apostolic strands in, 122; their validity 
denied by Pope Leo XIII., 132; Leo s 
Bull considered, 133-146 ; validity of, 
admitted by M. Dalbus, 133; Abbe 
Duchesne, 134 ; bv several Roman pre- 
lates, 136 ; the Sorbonne Faculty on, 



498 



INDEX. 



136-137 ; validity of, admitted by mem- 
bers of the Vatican Council, 137 ; Pa- 
pal decisions on, 137-139 ; Dr. Dollinser 
?.?,' ' verdict of Greek CathoHcs on, 

^^^i?.^^,^n^^^^^^°' wanting in no essen- 

iiai, 129, 140, 141, 
Ordination, essentials of, 129; Anglican 

validity of, 370. 
Origen, on Salvation only in the Apostolic 

Church, 192. 
Origin of this work, on "The Church for 

Americans," the, v. 
Osterfield, Anglo-Saxon Synod at, 244 
Oxford, revival of, 306. 



PAPAL See, original limits of, 45 • in- 
fallibility, 54-82 ; decretals, 64 ; Com- 
munion, 65 ; contradictions, 70-82 137 • 
supremacy, its development, 105-111- 
forgenes and corruptions of historv' 
109-113, 133; profligacy, 113-118, 254 i 
ignorance as exhibited by Leo XIII 's 
decree, 134; willingness to restore the 
Angbcan Church to its Communion 
139 ; usurped authority in England 
terminated, 229; aggrandizements, 247- 
249 ; dogmas that come perilously near 
to changing the Roman Church into a 
mere sect, 479, 
Parker, Archbishop, the Apostolic Succes- 

sion transmitted through, 130-13'^ 
Parliament, never recognized the Roman 
Church as the Church of England 2'^6 
244, 248 ; protests of, against the usur- 
pations of the Popes, 247. 
Pastoral, Bishops', on Ritualism, 346. 
Patriarchates, the five, of Christendom, 103 
28?^99 Episcopalians, the, proved, 
Patripassian heresy, the, 70. 
Patristic interpretations of "Thou art 
Peter," 87; scholars, quotations from 
regarding the perpetuation of the Apos- 
tolate m the Episcopate, 178 
Paul, St., nearer to the Gentile Church than 
St. Peter, 94 ; testimony of Theodoret 
concerning his planting the Gospel in 
Britain, 237; ministry of, approved bv 
miracles, 338. ' 
Pearson, Bp., on Salvation only in the 
Apostolic Church, 21 ; on non church 
membership, 22. 
Pelagianism, 71. 

Permanency of the AngUcan Communion 
■ the, contrasted with Denominationai 
transitoriness, 471-473. 

Perrj' Bp., concerning the relative claims 
of the Episcopal and Roman Churches 
to the allegiance of Americans, 414 

Peter, St., never had anv successors in the 
See of Rome, 90 ; doubtful if ever at 
Rome, 91; silence of, proof against 
Romish claims, 94 ; not the President 
at Council of Church at Jerusalem, 96 • 
probably oldest of the twelve, 101 

^^^^}y->'^ope, offer of, in the reign of 
Elizabeth, to confirm the whole Eng- 
lish Prayer Book. 130. 



Po^Jics^ relation of the Episcopal Church 

^°°Q:o?o®.n'^®^^°^? to the Episcopal Church, 
329-330; Dr. Jackson's testimony in- 
dorsing this fact, 464-465. 
Pope, the jest of the, about his Vatican 
guests, 55; dispute of early Fathers with 
^^' i^.L^T^^J" Bishop originally so 
called, 103 ; league of the Kings of Eng- 
land with the, for mutual support, 233: 
J^i^l^Wilham^s refusal to do homage 

Pope, Adrian, I., on images, 78 ; Adrian VI 
on Papal infallibility, 82; Boniface 
VIIL, and his famous Bull, Unam Sanc- 
tam, 83 ; Formosus, body of disen- 
tombed and abused, 72; Gregory I 
Ignorant of the existence of the British 
Churches 40; on the Holy Roman 
Church, 43 ; Gregory IX., on the Roman 
Church, 43 ; Gregory XL's, dying con- 
fession of fallibihty, 81 ; HonoriSus, a 
teacher of the Monothelite heresy 80 
81, 97, 110; Innocent IIL, on Holy 
Joman Church, 43, 83 ; self-description 
ot^; 84; John XXII. 's admission of Papal 
falhbihty, 81 ; Leo II., correspondence 
??Itt*^^^°^^c^°S Honorius, 81; Leo 
XIII. s decree of Invalidity of Anghcan 
Orders discussed and disproved, 132-146- 
Marcellinus, idolatry of. 70 ; Pascal II ' 
correspondence of, with Enghsh au- 
thorities, 246 ; Pius IV., on Holy Roman 
Church, 43; admission of Papal infalh- 
?Q9 i^b^^i-^"^ Enghsh Prayer Book, 130, 
432-433 ; Pius IX., and infallibihty, 55 
Stephen VI., the fate of, 72 ; Sixtus V 's 
Latin version of the Scriptures, 72-73 
Popes, original jurisdiction of, 44 ; the iu- 
risdiction of, 83-118; took no part in 
convoking Councils, 96; scandalous 
lives of some, 113; and Cardinals, 
placed m Hell by Michael Angelo in 
his "Last Judgment," 116 ; the, for sev- 
eral centuries created by Emperors, 
126 , offer of, to receive the Anghcan 
Church into Roman Communion. 130- 
the robbery of the Enghsh Church by,' 

Postures of the Church in worship 318 
Praemunire, statute of, 248. 
Prayer, Extempore, Evils of Pubhc, 314-318- 
^}^} forbidden by the Episcopal Church,' 
4o9-461. 

Prayer Book, Episcopal, stabihty of the 65 • 
essentially unchanged by the Refor- 
mation, 225 ; worship objection to, 313- 
318 ; encomiums by non Episcopahans, 
415-428; Pope Pius IV. on, 130, 432-433. 
Pre-Colonial Church of America, the, 261- 
262. 

Presbyterian, anecdote, 20 ; should become 
Episcopalians, 49; Westminster Con- 
fession on the visible Church, 194 212- 
assumed the name of Bishops, 281 ; use 
of Ecclesiastical vestments, 323- hy- 
pothesis of the development of Episco- 
P^i^Lo^^ticised by Bishop Griswold, 
406-408. 



INDEX. 



499 



Presbyterian Ordination, invalidity of, 272. ] 
Presbvterians, objections of, to the repre- I 
sentation that according to the Denr>mi- 
nationai idea anv person is at liberty 
to form a Church, 34 ; explanation of, 
concerning the development of Epis- 
copacv, 1>.0-1S.5 ; challenged by Hooker, 
206 ; reason of, for Episcopalian acces- 
sions, 305 ; subdivisions of. 340 ; drifted 
from Calvinism, 3S4 ; five, signers of the 
Constitution. 413-414; five, signers of 
the Declaration of Independence, 469- 
470 : will pass awav like other sects, 
472-473-. request of, "in 1660, realized in 
the American Church. St'S. 
Presbvters, the, sometimes called Bishops 

in the New Testament. 273. 
President and Faculty of Yale converted to 

the Episcopal Church, 270. 
Priest, objection of some to the Anglican 

use of the title. 456. 
Primacv of the Popes not due to inherit- 
ance from St. Peter, 104. See 101-118. 
Principle, the highest ground for the choice 
of Church relationship, 30, 



Reformed Episcopal Church, the so-called, 
SOS, 452-4.59 : simply a Denominational 
organization. 453-4.54 ; criticism of the 
Liturgical passages to which the, objects. 
4.56-458 ; Dr. Cummins' regret that he 
had formed the. 458. 
Reformers, English, the. morahty of. com- 
pared with Puritans and Romanists, 253. 
Relics introduced into Roman worship, 67 ; 

many, of Saints, 75. 
Religious societies not the Church, 35-37. 
Renan, testimonv of. as to the necessity of 

the Church, 24. 
Revolutionarv AVar, Puritans not unani- 
mous for,' 288 ; effects of, on the Epis- 
copal Church, 300 ; the part taken in, 
bv the Episcopalians. 379. 
Ritualism, Bishops' Pastoral letter on. 346. 
Rock, five Patristic interpretations of, 87. 
Roman Breviarv. corruptions of, 110. 
Roman Catholic, testimony against St. 
Peter's supremacy, 93-9^; for Dr. 
Parker's Consecration, 127 ; for the 
vahditv of Anghcan Orders, 133-144; 
tv^^o signers of the Constitution. 413-414; 
one signer of Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, 469-470. 



Prophets, messages of, 18. 

Proselvtizing iustified, 13-14. ■ - - , , • . ,i t ^ 

Protestant, Sbjection of, to the doctrine of i Rom^an Church,^ l^.^;„??^£™^ll^wf- . 

infallibihty, 60. " " " 

Provisors. statute of. 24S. 
Provoost. Bishop, the first of Xew York, 282. 
Pseudo-Clementine literature, the. 109. 
Pulpits, exchange of. 331. 
Purgatory, doctrine of, when introduced, 

67. 

Puritan Fathers, the, on the Episcopal 
Church. 257. 

Puritan sect«. opposition of efibrts of the 
Colonial Church to obtain local Epis- 
copacy, by, 268, 279. 

Puritanism, reaction of, towards the Epis- 
copal Church, 270. 

Puritans, alarm of. at Dr. Seabury's Con- 
secration. 281 ; not unanimous for the 
Revolutionary War, 2>8. 

QUAKERS, the, disuse of forms in wor- 
ship, 316 ; inner light of. 353 ; one 
signer of the Constitution among, 413- 
414 ; two signers of the Declaration of 
Independence among, 469-470. 
Queen Anne, made provision for American 

Bishops, 268. 
Queen Bertha's share in the Christianizing 

of England. 240. Frontispiece. 
Queen Elizabeth on the Continuity of the 

Enghsh Church, 226. 
Questions, the. to be considered before 

choosing Church relationship, 30. 
• ' Quirinus ' ' upon the Council on Papal in- 
fambihtv, .56. 



REASONS why Americans should be 
Episcopalians, 357-402 ; the perpetuity 
of the Church an additional reason, 
471-473. 

Reformation, the, not dependent on Henry 
VIII.. 230 ; English, impartial testimony 
as to its excellency and completeness, 
256. 



Church, 43 ; doctrinal instability of, 65- 
68 ; not the Church of England to time 
of Henry VIII., 217-258 ; difference from, 
not always defensible, 344 ; holds the 
essentials'of the Faith, 350. 
Roman. Conception of the Church, 32; 
theorv of the Church unhistorical, 46; 
Bishops in England, declaration of 
concerning English Church property, 
228 ; encroachments and their resist- 
ance, 242-258 ; Communion, no claim 
to the allegiance of the Enghsh speak- 
ing people. 361. 
Romanists, controversy with, 51-146; course 
to be pursued by those who would 
answer them, .54 : quahfying clauses 
bv which they seek to take the sting 
from the Protestant objections to the 
doctrine of infalhbility, 60; representa- 
tions of, concerning Anghcan Orders, 
119 ; and Denominationalists, conflict- 
ing testimony of, concerning the Epis- 
copal Church, 344. 
Rome," claims of, unanswerable objections 
to. 33 ; claim of, to supply the felt need 
of a Supreme and Omniscient Ruler re- 
futed. 62-68; comparative freedom of, 
from heresy. 68 ; Sees which at one time 
overshadowed it, 100; objection of, to 
the Anghcan succession, 127 ; never le- 
gally the Church of England, 226 : en- 
croachments of, and their resistance, 
242-249 ; interferences of, in England, 
protested against by Vv'arelwast. 245 : 
perversions from, to the Episcopal 
Church, inconsiderable, 306. 
Romish claims, a fascination to the unso- 
phisticated, 33 ; additions to the ■■ Faith 
once dehvered to the Samts," 881; her- 
esies that change the Church of Rome 
into a sect, 479. 



500 



INDEX. 



directions affecting Communion 
336. ' 

SACRAMENTS, teaching of the Fathers 
concerning the necessity of, valid. 198 
baints, Eomish worship of, when intro- 
duced, 66. 

Salmon, Professor, on the Santa Casa at 
Loretto, 77; on " Thou art Peter," 88 • on 
Peter's alleged Roman Episcopate, ' 90 

Salvation dependent upon Church Sacra- 
ments, doctrines and good works 2- 
upon the Confession of Christ, 21 ; only 
m the Church taught by the Westmin- 
ster Confession, 194; conditioned by 
conversion a half truth, 190, 196 ; cov- 
enanted, limited to the Apostolic 
Church. 211. 

Salvation Army, the, is it a Church''' If 
not, why are the various Denomina- 
tions such ? 36. 

Scaliger, on Peter's alleged connection with 
Rome, 91. 

Scandalous lives of some Popes, 113 

Schaflf, Professor, on the retribution 'follow- 
ing the declaration of Papal infallibil- 
ity, 59 ; on the fundamental error of 
Rome, 61. 

Schism the evil of, 10-12, 332; not justified 
by the plea of harsh treatment, 202 ; of 
Cummins and the Evangelicals, 302- 
303 ; never justified though apparently 
successful, 339 ; inseparable from her- 
Gsy, 382. 

School Histories, erroneous teachings of 

concerning the Church of England, 221 ' 
School-girl's influence in planting a 

church, a, 9. ^ s a 

Science and Romanism, 77-78. 
Scotland, revival of Episcopalian ideas in, 

308, 323. ' 
Scriptural names of Church Governors 181 
Scnpture, English Reformation based 

upon, 257. 

Scriptures, the, appealed to, by practical- 
ists, Doctrinalists and Institutionalists 
2, 49, 53, 156 ; to be read onlv by Clergy' 
74, 112; claimed by Romanists to 
teach Papal universal jurisdiction, 85- 
8b ; inference from, regarding the per- 
petuity of the Church, 172 ; regarding 
forms of prayer, 314; postures, 3'^0 • 
vestments, 321 ; appealed to, regarding 
the difl^erence between the Episcopal 
and Romish Churches, 354 

Seabury, Dr., first Bishop of America, 279 

Sectarian and Church growth, difference 
between, 304, 471-473. 

See, the, of Rome, overshadowed by other 
Sees, 100 ; the Roman, the only Apos- 
tolic in the West, 104. 

Selborne, Lord, on the Continuity of the 
Church in England, 221. 

Sermon-hearing, tendency to, rather than 
worship, among Denominationalists, 

Service of Christ, first step in. 20. 
Shakespeare, William, on Papal greed, 248. 
bJiields, Professor, on the Historic Episco- 



pate, 150 ; encomiums of, on the Book 

of Common Prayer, 419. 
Sinfulness of the human race, the 25 
Spurgeon, Rev. C. H., on forms of prayer, 

States^ United, should be a United Church 

Statistics of non church members 1 • of 
umnstructed Churchmen, 5 ; of Denom- 
inations, 35 ; of Denominationalist ac- 
cessions to the Episcopal Church 200 
2/5 ; of Clergy refusing assent to' the 
Reformed Oftices in England, 235 • of 
Anghcans in the world, 330; of New 
Pi-ptestant Christians in 1895, 473 • 
of English speaking Christians in the 
world, 474 ; showing the growth of the 
Episcopal Church from 1880 to 1890, 415. 

btedman, Edmund Clarence, encomium of 
on the Book of Common Prayer, 425. ' 

tet. J-ouis Abp of, protest against the dogma 
of mfaHibility, 87. 

Stowe, Harriet Beecher, the Church rela- 
tionship of, 296, 445-448. 

Succession, English, Dr. Seabury's failure 
to obtain it, 279. 

Successors of the Apostles, Church perpetu- 
ated by, 172-188. ^ 

Supremacy, Papal, 101-118. 



TABLE, showing increase of Episcopal 
. Church m New York city, 393 
Tame, ecomium of, on the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, 416. 
Talbot, Dr. J., Bishop incognito, at Bur- 
lington, N. J., 268. 
Tertullian, testimony of, to the fact that 
the first Bishops were ordained bv the 
Apostles, 181. 
Testamentum, 189. 

Theater-going, the position of the Episco- 
pal Church towards, 462-464. 
The Mother Church of England, 215-'^58 
Theologians and Scientists, their depend- 
ence upon inferences, 154. 
Thompson, Bp., on the responsibilities of the 
Christian life, 28 ; on the Bible and the 
Church, 151 ; on the Apostolic Succes- 
sion, 174 ; on Denominational ministry 
207 ; on sectarian bigotry, 341. 
" Thou art Peter," 85; five Patristic inter- 
pretations of, 87. 
Timothy, the Bishop of Ephesus, 173 
Titus, the Bishop of Crete, 173. 
Tobacco stipends, 270. 
Toulouse, Council of, 112. 
Tractarian movement, the, 387. 
Trent, Council of, English Prelates invited 
to, 139. 

Trinity, Advent to, Bishop of Ohio on ed- 
ucational advantages of the Church 
year, 373. 



ULTRAMONTANE ARGUMENTS, the, 
answered, 41 ; Roman interpretation 
of the texts they are based on, 86-89; 



INDEX. 



501 



claims disproved by St. Paul's case, 93 ; 
claims incompatible with Roman im- 
morality, 113 ; the, apology for Papal 
immorality, 116 ; arguments prove too 
much aga'inst Anglicans, 122 ; refuge 
behind so-called "infallible" Papal 
decrees, 133 ; representation that the 
Church of England was a Romish 
Mission, disproved, 236-242 ; hatred of 
free institutions, 364. 

Unarn Sanctam, the Bull, 83. 

Un- Americanism , the alleged, of the Epis- 
copal Church, disproved, 288-299. 

Uncanonical Episcopate of Rome in the 
United States, the, 280. 

United States, Constitution of, the faith of 
its framers, 413. 

Unity, Christian, prayer for, 13; the Epis- 
copal Church the only hope of, 386-401. 

Unity of the Christian Church, strained 
but not broken by the Civil War, 286. 

Universal jurisdiction claimed by Rome, 
83-85. 

Urban II., Pope, on the independence of 
the Enghsh Church, 246. 

VALENTINIAN TIL, decree of, 126. 
Validity of Parker's Consecration, 
131-132 ; of the Anglican orders denied 
by Leo XIIL, 131-146. 
Variations among Protestants, Bossaet's,66. 
Vatican Council, its constitution and meth- 
ods ^f procedure, 55-59; remarkable co- 
incidence, a, 59 ; dogmatic decree of, 83, 
137. 

Verdict of Greek scholars on the Validity 
of Anglican orders, 434-436. 

Vestments, objections to, 321-324 ; a layman 
on, 461-462. 

Vicar of Christ applied to Edward the Con- 
fessor, 125. 

Vicars of Peter changed to Vicars of Christ, 
67. 

Vicegerent of Christ, the Pope claims to be, 
84. 

Virgil, Bishop, Papal condemnation of, 77. 

Virginia's Declaration of Rights the work 
of an Episcopalian, 290. 

Virgin Mary, Immaculate Conception of, 
66 ; believed by Romanists to have re- 
vealed herself, 75. 

Vital rehgion, reputed lack of, an objection 
to the Episcopal Church, 324-326. 

Votaries of Society, the, not exclusively 
Episcopalians, 326. 

Votes of Roman Prelates against the doc- 
trine of Papal infallibility, 58. 

WAR, effect of the Revolutionary, on 
the Episcopal Church, 300; effect 
of the Civil, on the Episcopal Church, 
301. 

Washington, Gen., communicant of the 
Episcopal Church, 289, 408-411 ; of 
twelve generals appointed by, eight 
were Episcopalians, 379. 



Welton, Dr. R., Bishop incognito in Phil- 
adelphia, 268. 

Wesley, Chartes, a life-long Episcopalian, 
38, 399. 

Wesley, John, is his society a Church ? 36 ; 
a life-long EpiscopaUan, 88, 429-432; 
followers of, did not imitate his exam- 
ple, 203 ; and Charles, died communi- 
cants of the Church, 205; sermon of. 
No. CXV on the "Ministerial Office," 
great source of regret to Methodist 
ministers, 211, 436; on the English 
Church, 257 ; regularly used both Vest- 
ments and Services, 322 ; death-bed 
prayer for the Church of England, 399 ; 
reasons against a separation from the 
Church of England, 429 ; on the Minis- 
terial Office, 436-440 ; references to, 
322, 326, 338, 341, 383, 397, 421. 

Westminster Confession, Presbyterian, 194, 
212, 341. 

White, Bp., advised the creation of a spur- 
ious Episcopate, 277. 

Why Americans should be Episcopalians, 
359-402. 

William the Conqueror, refusal of, to do 

homage to the Pope, 244. 
Wine, fermented. Communion, objection to, 

considered, 466-469. 
Witan, attitude of the Saxon towards the 

Pope, 244. 

Wolff, Dr., and the Greek Bishop, anecdote 
concerning, 209. 

Words typical of great reUgious systems, 18. 

Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, communi- 
cation to, from members of the Vatican 
Council, 137. 

World, exchange of, for the Church, the 
only acceptable way of confessing 
Christ, 21. 

Worldliness, the Episcopal Church accused 
of, 326. 

Worship, pre- composed forms of, justified, 
313-318 ; of Apostles and Saints, liturgi- 
cal, 314, 315. 

Wyckhflfe, on " Thou art Peter," 91 ; trans- 
lating the Bible, 248. 

YALE, notable conversion of the Presi- 
dent and Faculty of, to Episcopacy, 
271. 

Yale College converts to the Episcopacy, 
reply of, to the Presbyterians, 272. 

Year, the Christian, the Bishop of Ohio on, 
373 ; Dr. Hitchcock upon revival of, 
374-375. 

Young Men's Christian Association, why 
are not its secretaries ministers? 187; 
an organization, not a Church, 202. 

ZANTE, Abp. of, on the Anglican Com- 
munion as the rallying point for di- 
vided Christendom, 388. 
Zephyrinus, Pope, held the Patripassian 
heresy, 70. 

Zosimus, Pope, his relation to Pelagius, 71. 



